Fitch v. Bethancourt ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALVIN JOSEPH FITCH CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 24-958 JUDGE RANDALL L. BETHANCOURT, ET AL. SECTION “O” ORDER Before the Court is the report and recommendation1 of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims of pro se Plaintiff Alvin Joseph Fitch—a pretrial detainee awaiting trial on a second-degree murder charge—as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. The Magistrate Judge so recommends because Plaintiff seeks relief against an immune Defendant and because Plaintiff otherwise fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff timely filed an objection2 that includes as an attachment3 orders of Defendant Judge Randall L. Bethancourt—the judge presiding over Plaintiff’s criminal case—denying two of Plaintiff’s pro se motions. Although Plaintiff provides no explanation in his objection, the Court infers that Plaintiff offers the attachment as purported support for Plaintiff’s complaint that Judge Bethancourt has denied every pro se motion Plaintiff has filed. 1 ECF No. 4. 2 ECF No. 5. 3 ECF No. 5-1. Construing Plaintiffs “filings liberally because he is a pro se litigant,” Collins v. Dall. Leadership Found., 77 F.4th 327, 330 (5th Cir. 2023) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)), the Court finds that Plaintiff's objection does not call into question any aspect of the Magistrate Judge’s thorough report and recommendation. Having conducted a de novo review of that report and recommendation in light of Plaintiff's objection, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court overrules Plaintiffs objection and adopts the report and recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Alvin Joseph Fitch’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendants Judge Randall L. Bethancourt, the 32nd Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the 32nd Judicial District Public Defender’s Office are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A as frivolous, for seeking relief against an immune Defendant, and otherwise for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A final judgment will follow in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of June, 2024. Ss. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE