Verdin v. Soignet ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SOLOMON J. VERDIN, JR. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 23-2735 TIMOTHY SOIGNET, ET AL. SECTION “R” (1) ORDER Plaintiff Solomon Verdin, Jr., a state pretrial detainee housed at the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex (“TPCJC”) and proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Verdin alleges that female TPCJC deputies do not announce their presence before entering all-male pods and dormitories and encountering nude male inmates,2 and that he has been denied medical accommodations, include shower and toilet rails and a foot brace, that are necessary to protect him from falls due to an existing foot injury.3 Verdin also alleges in his first supplemental complaint that Detective Kennedy, an investigator for TPCJC, retaliated against him for reporting two female deputies and attempted to cause him physical harm and injury.4 1 R. Doc. 3. 2 Id. at 4-5. 3 Id. at 5-6. 4 R. Doc. 9. In connection with the lawsuit, Verdin filed a motion for a temporary restraining order against TPCJC, in which he alleges that defendants Warden Rhonda Ledet and Detective Kennedy retaliated against him by exposing him to potential harm from other inmates.5 On September 5, 2023, Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court construe Verdin’s motion as one for a preliminary injunction.6 The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the motion be denied because Verdin failed to establish how the requested intervention is aimed at preserving the status quo with respect to the claims in this lawsuit.7 Plaintiff did not object to the R&R. Therefore, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The Court finds no clear error. 5 R. Doc. 11. 6 R. Doc. 12. 7 Id. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R as its opinion. Plaintiffs motion is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _22nd__ day of September, 2023. SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE