Romero v. Youngsville et al

Filing 107

JUDGMENT ADOPTING 99 Report and Recommendations. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 79] filed by Defendants Officers Louis Berges, Grant Thorne, and Kelley Dauphine, each in hisindividual capacity and offici al capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Youngsville is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. To the extent Defendants move for dismissal of Plaintiff Tammy L. Romeros (Romero) claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the motion is GRANTED, and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. To the extent that Defendants move for dismissal of Romerosstate law claims, the motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 29] which remains pend ing before the Court and in which Defendants seek summary judgment on Romeros state law claims is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Romeros state law claims, and all remaining state law claims are REMANDED to the Fifteenth Judicial District Court. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 8/11/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION TAMMY L. ROMERO CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-02928 VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES CITY OF YOUNGSVILLE, ET AL. MAG. JUDGE CAROL B. WHITEHURST JUDGMENT For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein [Doc. Nos. 68 & 99], as well as the Court’s previous Ruling [Doc. No. 84], and after an independent review of the record, including the objections, responses, and reply filed by the parties, and having determined that the findings and recommendations are correct under the applicable law, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 79] filed by Defendants Officers Louis Berges, Grant Thorne, and Kelley Dauphine, each in his individual capacity and official capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Youngsville is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. To the extent Defendants move for dismissal of Plaintiff Tammy L. Romero’s (“Romero”) claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the motion is GRANTED, and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. To the extent that Defendants move for dismissal of Romero’s state law claims, the motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 29] which remains pending before the Court and in which Defendants seek summary judgment on Romero’s state law claims is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Romero’s state law claims, and all remaining state law claims are REMANDED to the Fifteenth Judicial District Court. MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 11th day of August, 2016. 2

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?