Romero v. Youngsville et al

Filing 85

JUDGMENT: For the reasons stated in this Courts Ruling 84 , and for the reasons contained in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, to the extent adopted, and after an independent review of the entire record and the written objec tions and responses filed herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 47] is DENIED. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 29] is GRAN TED IN PART and DEFERRED IN PART. To the extent that Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs federal claims, the motion is GRANTED, and the federal claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. To the extent that Defendants move for summary judgme nt on Plaintiffs state law claims, the Court DEFERS either ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment as to those claims or declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims until the pending motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 79] is fully resolved. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 5/16/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
TAMMY L. ROMERO

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-2928

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

CITY OF YOUNGSVILLE, ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE CAROL B. WHITEHURST
JUDGMENT

For the reasons stated in this Court’s Ruling and for the reasons contained in the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, to the extent adopted, and after an independent
review of the entire record and the written objections and responses filed herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
[Doc. No. 47] is DENIED.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 29] is GRANTED IN PART and
DEFERRED IN PART. To the extent that Defendants move for summary judgment on
Plaintiff’s federal claims, the motion is GRANTED, and the federal claims are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE. To the extent that Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s
state law claims, the Court DEFERS either ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment as to
those claims or declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims until the
pending motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 79] is fully resolved.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 16th day of May, 2016.