Wright v. City of Tallulah et al

Filing 70

JUDGMENT: For the reasons set forth in this Court's Ruling 69 , IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that, after consideration of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 27] filed by Defendants City of Tallulah, Ja mes Vaughn (Vaughn), and Larry Guy (Guy) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. To the extent Defendants move to dismiss the claims against Vaughn and Guy in their official capacities, the motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs claims against them are DIS MISSED WITH PREJUDICE. To the extent Defendants move to dismiss the claims against Defendant City of Tallulah and against Vaughn and Guy in their individual capacities, the motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants implied Appeal of the Magistrate Judges Order allowing Plaintiff to amend his complaint, contained in Defendants objections [Doc. No. 63], is DENIED.. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 9/15/14. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION

CHADRICK WRIGHT

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-01631

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

CITY OF TALLULAH, ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES
JUDGMENT

For those reasons set forth in this Court’s Ruling and for those additional reasons set forth
in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. No. 57], to the extent
adopted, and after a de novo review of the record, including the objections and responses,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that, after consideration of Plaintiff’s
First Amended Complaint, the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 27] filed by Defendants City of
Tallulah, James Vaughn (“Vaughn”), and Larry Guy (“Guy”) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART.
To the extent Defendants move to dismiss the claims against Vaughn and Guy in their
official capacities, the motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against them are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. To the extent Defendants move to dismiss the claims
against Defendant City of Tallulah and against Vaughn and Guy in their individual capacities,
the motion is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ implied Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s
Order allowing Plaintiff to amend his complaint, contained in Defendants’ objections [Doc. No.
63], is DENIED.

Monroe, Louisiana, this 15th day of September, 2014.