Weir v. Department of Corrections et al, No. 3:2010cv00191 - Document 38 (M.D. La. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION Adopting 37 Report and Recommendations of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. Defendants' 34 motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's claims asserted against defendant Curtis Thurman are dismissed for the same reason pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1915(e) and 1915A. The plaintiff's 33 motion for summary judgment is denied. The 35 motion for summary judgment of defendant James Stevens is granted, dismissing plaintiff's claim of excessive force asserted against this defendant with prejudice. This entire action is dismissed. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge Frank J. Polozola on 1/9/12. (DCB) Modified on 1/9/2012 (DCB).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA PAUL JOSEPH WEIR (#129806) CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 10-0191-FJP-CN WARDEN N. BURL CAIN, ET AL. O P I N I O N After independently reviewing the entire record in this case and for reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report1 to which no objection was filed: IT IS ORDERED that the defendants' motion to dismiss2 be granted, dismissing all of plaintiff's claims asserted against the moving defendants (except the claim of excessive force asserted against defendant Stevens), with prejudice, for failure of the plaintiff to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's claims asserted against defendant Curtis Thurman be dismissed for the same reason pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e) and 1915A. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for summary 1 Rec. Doc. No. 37. 2 Rec. Doc. No. 34. Doc#47651 judgment3 is denied. Stevens4 James is The motion for summary judgment of defendant granted, dismissing plaintiff's claim of excessive force asserted against this defendant with prejudice. Therefore: This entire action is dismissed. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, January 9, 2012. S FRANK J. POLOZOLA MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 3 Rec. Doc. No. 33. 4 Rec. Doc. No. 35. Doc#47651
]]>
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.
