Grant v. Lafourche Parish et al, No. 2:2021cv01782 - Document 9 (E.D. La. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's objections are OVERRULED and his 6 , 8 motions are DENIED; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's 4 Report and Recommendation ("R & R") are ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court, DISMISSING the captioned action as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 9/8/2022.(pp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Grant v. Lafourche Parish et al Doc. 9 Case 2:21-cv-01782-ILRL Document 9 Filed 09/08/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL GRANT CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 21-1782 LAFOURCHE PARISH, ET AL SECTION: “B” (5) ORDER AND REASONS Before the Recommendation Court to are the dismiss Magistrate Judge’s Christopher Report Michael and Grant’s (“Petitioner or Grant”) pro se in forma pauperis complaint for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Rec. Doc. 4), Grant’s objections to same (Rec. Doc. 5), his motions to subpoena records (Rec. Doc. 6) and to add grievance (Rec. Doc. 8). After reviews of the foregoing, the entire record, and applicable law, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED and his motions are DENIED; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) are ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court, DISMISSING the captioned action as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motions to issue subpoenas and to add a grievance were filed after the filing of the R & R. The subpoena requests records for every inmate’s sick call and grievance along with prison camera Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-01782-ILRL Document 9 Filed 09/08/22 Page 2 of 2 recordings to “show the extremeness of illness by every inmate.” Rec. Doc. 6 at 1. The subpoena is facially overbroad and presents an undue burden. Moreover, it seeks superfluous and irrelevant information that would not change the instant outcome. Lastly, petitioner’s attempt to file a second grievance after the September 27, 2021 filing of the instant complaint is merely a restatement of the initial grievance that’s the subject of instant complaint, i.e. Alleged failure to receive correct treatment or testing for Covid-19 on July 9, 2021. (Compare Rec. Doc. 1, Complaint at pp. 4-5, with Rec. Doc. 8, Oct. 7, 2021 Grievance at p. 2.). Like the aforementioned grievance is subpoena request, the motion to add superfluous, having no impact upon ultimate issues and outcome. New Orleans, Louisiana this 8th day of September, 2022 ___________________________________ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
