Samuels v. Prator et al

Filing 8

JUDGMENT ADOPTING 7 Report and Recommendations, dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's civil rights claims seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief as frivolous until such time as the Heck conditions are met. FURTHER ORDERED that Plain tiff's civil rights claims against District Attorney Charles Rex Scott, Assistant District Attorney Jackson and Carolyn J Sartin be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for habeas relief be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 10/23/2015. (crt,McDonnell, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
ONTARIO SAMUELS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2437-P

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

STEVE PRATOR, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
JUDGMENT

For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
previously filed herein, and after an independent review of the record, and noting the lack
of written objections filed by Plaintiff and determining that the findings are correct under the
applicable law;
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s civil rights claims seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief for his allegedly unconstitutional conviction and sentence be DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) until such time as the Heck
conditions are met.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s civil rights claims against District Attorney
Charles Rex Scott, Assistant District Attorney Jackson, and Carolyn J. Sartin be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for habeas relief be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the U.S. District
Courts requires the district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters
a final order adverse to the applicant. The court, after considering the record in this case
and the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 2253, DENIES a certificate of appealability

because the applicant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, in Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 23rd
day of October, 2015.

Page 2 of 2