Morgan v. Gusman et al, No. 2:2015cv03693 - Document 23 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 22 Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/19/2016. (bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Morgan v. Gusman et al Doc. 23 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A D ARRYL MORGAN , Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 15 -3 6 9 3 MARLIN N . GU SMAN , ET AL. D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E” ORD ER AN D REAS ON S On August 19, 20 15, Plaintiff Darryl Morgan filed a com plaint pro se and in form a pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Orleans Parish Crim in al Sheriff Marlin N. Gusm an and a num ber of his deputies. 1 In sum , Morgan alleged he was subject to a num ber of unconstitutional conditions of confinem ent and was denied adequate m edical treatm ent while incarcerated in Orleans Parish Prison. 2 After conducting a Spears hearing and considering Morgan’s com plaints, Chief Magistrate J udge J oseph Wilkinson issued a Report an d Recom m endation on J anuary 15, 20 16, recom m ending that Morgan’s com plaint be dism issed with prejudice as legally frivolous and/ or for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). 3 Objections to the Report and Recom m endation were due by J anuary 29, 20 16. Morgan did not file objections to the Report within that tim e fram e. Accordingly, the undersigned adopted J udge Wilkinson’s Report and Recom m endation, in full, on February 2, 20 16, 4 and entered a J udgm ent dism issing Morgan’s com plaint with prejudice on the sam e date. 5 On April 15, 20 16, m ore than two m onths after the deadlin e 1 R. Doc. 1. See R. Doc. 1. 3 R. Doc. 15. 4 R. Doc. 16. 5 R. Doc. 17. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com for filing objections, Morgan filed into the record a request to reopen his case, asserting for the first tim e objections to J udge Wilkinson’s Report and Recom m endation. 6 Whether to consider late-filed objections to a Report and Recom m endation is entirely within the Court’s discretion. 7 The Court finds no reason to exercise its discretion and consider Morgan’s late-filed objections in this case. Morgan had an opportunity to file objections prior to J anuary 29, 20 16, but failed to do so, instead waiting over two m onths to raise issues with the Report and Recom m endation. Furtherm ore, even if the Court were to consider Morgan’s filing, it would be an exercise in futility, as his objections to the Report and Recom m endation are not m eritorious. From what the Court can tell, Morgan argues the Report and Recom m endation, and this Court’s Order adopting the Report, were incorrectly based only on his claim that he was unconstitutionally deprived m edical treatm ent, not on his claim that the conditions of confinem ent in Orleans Parish Prison were unconstitutional. 8 The Court m ust disagree with this argum ent, as the Report and Recom m endation goes to great lengths to address both of Morgan’s claim s, i.e., first, Morgan’s claim that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinem ent, and second, Morgan’s claim that the m edical treatm ent he received was unconstitutional. 9 Likewise, in adopting the Report and Recom m endation, this Court was cognizant of the universe of Morgan’s claim s and agreed with the Magistrate J udge with respect to both. Accordingly; 6 R. Doc. 22. Scott v. Alford, 62 F.3d 395 (5th Cir. 1995), the Fifth Circuit noted that "district courts need not consider late objections" to a Report and Recom m endation . In stead, whether to consider late-filed objections is within the district court's discretion . Id. See also Loredo v. Barnhart, 210 F. App'x 417, 418 n.1 (5th Cir. 20 0 6) (quotin g Rodriguez v. Bow en , 857 F.2d 275, 276– 77 (5th Cir. 198 8) (finding it within the district court's discretion whether to consider late-filed objections)). Courts outside of the Fifth Circuit have also weighed in on this issue. See, e.g., Jones v. W illiam s, No. 92-1157, 1993 WL 477916, at *1 (W.D. Okla. May 28 , 1993) ("It is entirely within this Court's discretion whether to allow the untim ely objection , and in m ost every case the Court will not allow late objections."). 8 R. Doc. 22. 9 See R. Doc. 15. 7 In 2 IT IS ORD ERED that Morgan’s request to reopen his case is D EN IED . N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 19 th d ay o f Ap ril, 2 0 16 . ______________________ _________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 3
]]>
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.
