Davis v. Louisiana State University and A&M College et al
Filing
23
RULING granting 18 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Defendants Alexander, Fuentes-Martin, and Barras are dismissed from this action WITH PREJUDICE. Any response to this Ruling shall be filed by 5/9/2019 as set forth herein. A statement of costs shall be filed by 5/2/2019 as set forth herein. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 4/25/2019. (SWE) Modified on 4/25/2019 to edit the text (SWE).
Case 3:18-cv-00614-SDD-RLB
Document 23
04/25/19 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSHUA DAVIS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
18-614-SDD-RLB
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
AND A&M COLLEGE, ET AL.
RULING
Local Rule 7(f) of the Middle District of Louisiana requires that memoranda in
opposition to a motion be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service of the motion.
In the present case, a Second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim1 was
electronically filed by Defendants, F. King Alexander, individually and in his official
capacity as LSU President, Mari Fuentes-Martin, individually and in her official capacity
as LSU Dean of Students, and Katie McGee Barras, individually and in her official
capacity (collectively “Defendants”), on February 19, 2019. A review of the record shows
that far more than twenty-one (21) days have elapsed since the filing of this motion, and
no memorandum in opposition has been submitted to date. Further, the record reveals
that Plaintiff, Joshua Davis (“Plaintiff”) has not sought an extension of time to oppose
Defendants’ motion.
Additionally, the history of this case demonstrates that Plaintiff has been previously
advised by the Court that, although he is pro se, he must comply with the Federal Rules
1
Rec. Doc. 18.
Document Number: 51297
Page 1 of 3
Case 3:18-cv-00614-SDD-RLB
Document 23
04/25/19 Page 2 of 3
of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Middle District in prosecuting his case.2 The
Defendants previously moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the Court allowed
Plaintiff additional time to submit a proper Opposition to Defendants’ first motion. Plaintiff
complied, and the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss as most of Plaintiff’s claims were
prescribed, but the Court granted the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to raise
any timely claims he may have.3 Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint,4 which prompted
the second motion to dismiss currently before the Court. Plaintiff has failed to oppose
this motion.
Therefore, this Motion is deemed to be unopposed, and further, after reviewing the
record, the Court finds that the Motion has merit as a matter of law. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State
a Claim5 is GRANTED, and Defendants Alexander, Fuentes-Martin, and Barras are
dismissed from this action WITH PREJUDICE.
Any response to this Ruling explaining the failure to comply with the deadline,
based on the appropriate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, shall be filed within fourteen
(14) days and must be accompanied by an opposition memorandum to the original
Motion.
On review of the pleadings filed along with the opposition, the Court, at its
discretion, may assess costs, including attorney’s fees, against the moving party, if the
2
Rec. Doc. No. 11.
Rec. Doc. No. 16.
4
Rec. Doc. No. 17.
5
Rec. Doc. 18.
3
Document Number: 51297
Page 2 of 3
Case 3:18-cv-00614-SDD-RLB
Document 23
04/25/19 Page 3 of 3
Court deems that such a motion was unnecessary had a timely opposition memorandum
been filed.6 A statement of costs conforming to L.R. 54(c) shall be submitted by all parties
desiring to be awarded costs and attorney’s fees no later than seven (7) days prior to the
hearing on the newly filed motion.
Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 25th day of April, 2019.
S
________________________________
SHELLY D. DICK
CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
6
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, 83.
Document Number: 51297
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?