Harrison et al v. Sweazy et al

Filing 10

OPINION Adopting 9 Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. The Plaintiffs claims against all defendants, other than the City of Baton Rouge Office of Community Development and the City of Baton Rouge Human Resources, are DISMISSED W ITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to state a claimpursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and Plaintiffs claims against all defendants, including the City of Baton Rouge Office of Community Development and the City of Baton Rouge Human Resource s, arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). FURTHER, Plaintiffs claims against the City of Baton Rouge Office of Community Development and the City of Baton Rouge Human Resources arising under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act are maintained, subject to the requirement that Plaintiff file her Amended Complaint in accordance with the report and recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judgewithin thirty (30) days of this opinion. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 04/18/2019. (NLT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CATHY L. HARRISON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 17-487-JWD-RLB
THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE-PARISH
OF EAST BATON ROUGE, OFFICE OF THE
MAYOR-PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF COMMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT, ET AL.
OPINION
After independently reviewing the entire record in this case and for the reasons set
forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report dated April 3, 2019, to which no opposition was filed;
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against all defendants, other than the City of
Baton Rouge Office of Community Development and the City of Baton Rouge Human
Resources, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against all defendants, including
the City of Baton Rouge Office of Community Development and the City of Baton Rouge
Human Resources, arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against the City of Baton Rouge
Office of Community Development and the City of Baton Rouge Human Resources arising
under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Genetic Information
Nondisclosure Act are maintained, subject to the requirement that Plaintiff file her Amended

Complaint in accordance with the report and recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge
within thirty (30) days of this opinion.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on April 18, 2019.

S
JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA