Scott D. Johnson

“It is recommended that the Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 19) be granted, dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants. It is further recommended that the Court decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in connection with any potential state law claims, and that this action be dismissed with prejudice.”

“It is recommended that the Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 41) be granted, dismissing Plaintiff’s remaining claims, with prejudice, and that this action be closed.”

“It is the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 24) be granted, in part, and Plaintiff’s claims asserted against Defendants LeBlanc and Vannoy be dismissed, with prejudice. It is further recommended that Plaintiff’s claim for compensatory damages be dismissed, with prejudice. Finally, it is further recommended that in all other regards the Motion be denied and that this matter be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings herein.”

“It is recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion (R. Doc. 11) be denied. It is further recommended that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure of Plaintiff to serve the defendants as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).”

“IT IS ORDERED that the Motions to Appoint Counsel (R. Docs. 2 and 11) are DENIED.”

“Plaintiff’s cause of action should be deemed dismissed without prejudice and closed.”

Johnson recommended sua sponte remand of a pro se-removed state eviction proceeding. Under the well-pleaded-complaint rule, a federal defense does not create removal jurisdiction; all parties were Louisiana citizens, defeating diversity; and the removal statute is not an appellate route for a state-court loser.

Sua sponte show-cause / Rule 4(m) & Local Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to serve (no party motion, so it is excluded). Notable: applied the HEIGHTENED Millan 'clear record of delay or contumacious conduct' standard because dismissal without prejudice would effectively be with prejudice (limitations bar), then dismissed anyway given the pro se plaintiff's total inaction.

“IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on behalf of Jason Kent, Keith Turner, Dewey Phillips, and Cherryl Washington, be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Parker’s claims against Dewey Phillips and Parker’s claims regarding the conditions of confinement in administrative segregation and regarding not being provided his medications should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to Parker’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.”

“the undersigned recommends the motion be granted in part and denied in part.”

“IT IS RECOMMENDED that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction be declined, that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Unknown Kelly and Unknown Lollis be GRANTED, and that Taylor’s claims against Kelly and Lollis be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

“Because Defendants’ Notice of Removal was not timely under § 1446(b)(3)... Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand should be granted.”

“RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s request for sanctions be DENIED.”