Whitfield v. Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics

Filing 99

ORDER granting Defendant Officer Juan Chapa's Motion 77 for Entry of Judgment. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on December 4, 2019. (RN)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

LARRY E. WHITFIELD, JR.

v.
MISSISSIPPI BUREAU OF
NARCOTICS; OFFICER D. RICE,
Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics; AND
OFFICER JUAN CHAPA, Hinds
County Sheriff’s Department

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

PLAINTIFF

Civil No. 3:17cv987-HSO-JCG

DEFENDANTS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT OFFICER JUAN CHAPA’S MOTION [77]
FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion [77] for Final Judgment filed by
Defendant Juan Chapa. After due consideration of the record and the relevant legal
authority, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant Juan Chapa’s Motion [77] for
Final Judgment should be granted.
On February 13, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Chapa’s Motion [38] for
Judgment on the Pleadings and dismissed Plaintiff Larry E. Whitfield, Jr.’s claims
against him. Order [58]. Defendant filed the instant Motion [77] on September 12,
2019. Plaintiff has not responded. See L.U. Civ. R. 7(b)(4) (non-moving party must
respond to motion within fourteen days of service).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) a court may direct entry of a

final judgment as to fewer than all claims or parties in an action if the court
determines that there is no just reason for delay. In deciding whether to certify a
judgment under Rule 54(b), a court must make two determinations. Briargrove
Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture v. Pilgrim Enters., Inc, 170 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir.
1999). The court must first determine whether its judgment is “an ultimate
disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.”
Id. (internal quotation omitted). Second, it must determine whether any just reason
for delay exists. Id.
Here, the Court’s judgment dismissing Plaintiff Whitfield’s claims against
Defendant Chapa is an ultimate disposition. Further, the Court finds that although
this Final Judgment adjudicates fewer than all of the parties’ rights and liabilities,
there is no reason for delay of an entry of a final judgment of dismissal of all
Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice against Defendant Chapa. Accordingly, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b),
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, Defendant
Officer Juan Chapa’s Motion [77] for Entry of Final Judgment is GRANTED, and
Plaintiff Larry E. Whifield, Jr.’s claims against Defendant Juan Chapa are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED this 4th day of December, 2019.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2