Naylor v. Harrell et al

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM RULING re 12 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim Doughty, Grisson, Landry filed by Daniel Grisson, Jeff Landry, Terry A Doughty, 17 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim filed by James Adcock, Michael R Wil son, 15 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim James W. Berry from complaint filed by James W Berry, 19 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim Lt. Terry A. Parrish filed by Terry Parrish and 32 JOINT/VOLUNTARY MOTION to Dismiss filed by Nafessa H Naylor. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 1/31/17. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
NAFESSA H. NAYLOR

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-0817

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

LEE HARRELL, ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES
RULING

Pending before the Court are Defendants Attorney General Jeff Landry, Judge Terry
Doughty, State Trooper Daniel Grisson, James Berry, Michael Wilson, James Adcock and Lt. Terry
Parrish’s (collectively, “Defendants”) four motions to dismiss [Doc. Nos. 12, 15, 17, & 19] and
Plaintiff Nafeesa Naylor’s (“Naylor”) “Motion Requesting Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.”
[Doc. No. 32] .
On December 22, 2016, Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes issued a Report and
Recommendation [Doc. No. 27], recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss
and dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Neither party filed an objection to her Report and
Recommendation. On December 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion Requesting Extension of Time
to File Objection to the Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes Report and Recommendation, and Amend
the Plaintiff Original Petition”. [Doc. No. 29]. The Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time until
January 26, 2017, to file objections to the report and recommendation. [Doc. No. 31]. Further, the
Court ordered that “Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to amend her Complaint no later than
January 26, 2017.” Id.
On January 26, 2017, Naylor filed a voluntary motion to dismiss without prejudice. [Doc.
No. 32]. On January 27, 2017, Defendant James Berry filed a response [Doc. No. 33] to Naylor’s

motion to dismiss. On January 30, 2017, Defendant Terry Parrish filed a response [Doc. No. 34] to
Naylor’s motion to dismiss.
First, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to voluntarily dismiss her action. The right
to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice is not absolute. Rather, dismissal on Motion under Rule
41(a)(2) is within the sound discretion of the court . . . .” LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601,
604 (5th Cir. 1976). “The primary purpose in entrusting dismissal to the supervision of the court
under Rule 41(a)(2) is to protect the non-movant from unfair treatment.” Ikospentakis v. Thalassic
S.S. Agency, 915 F.2d 176, 179 (5th Cir. 1990). Generally, dismissal should be allowed except where
the defendant “will suffer some plain legal prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second
lawsuit.” Holiday Queen Land Corp. v. Baker, 489 F.2d 1031, 1032 (5th Cir. 1974) (quoting
Durham v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 385 F.2d 366 (5th Cir. 1967)).
In this case, the Court finds that dismissal without prejudice should not be permitted at this
stage of the litigation. The Court already provided Plaintiff with an extension of time to file
objections to the Report and Recommendation and an opportunity to amend her complaint. [Doc.
No. 31]. She did neither. Instead, Plaintiff allowed the deadline to pass and filed the instant motion
to dismiss without prejudice. As Defendant James Berry further points out, Plaintiff has been
awarded additional opportunities to pursue her claim, and Defendants have been subjected to
considerable time and expense in defending this matter. [Doc. No. 33, p. 2]. Thus, under these
circumstances, the Court hereby DENIES Naylor’s motion to dismiss her lawsuit without prejudice.
Having determined that Naylor should not be allowed to voluntarily dismiss her lawsuit, the
Court has reviewed the outstanding Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court
finds that the Report and Recommendation is supported by the law and the record in this matter and,
2

therefore, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
The motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted [Doc. Nos.
12, 15, 17, & 19] filed by Defendants Attorney General Jeff Landry, Judge Terry Doughty, State
Trooper Daniel Grisson, James Berry, Michael Wilson, James Adcock and Lt. Terry Parrish are
GRANTED, and Naylor’s claims against these defendants are hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Lucille Walker, Dewey Allen, William Scott
Hunt, and Lee Harrell are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s ineffective assistance of
counsel claim is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 31st day of January, 2017.

3