Haynes v. Lee ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION CARROLL WAYNE HAYNES #305815 CASE NO. 6:22-CV-00534 VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS RALPH K LEE JR., ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST ORDER Before the Court are Objections to the Order of the Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 31] and a Motion to Vacate same [ECF No. 32], filed on behalf of Defendants M. Bofill Duhé and Ralph K. Lee. By these motions, Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge’s May 22, 2023 Order, which granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint and denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice to their right to re-urge the motion once the amended complaint was filed.! Defendants move the Court to vacate the Order “based on the Magistrate Judge’s lack of authority to issue an Order on dispositive motions.”* They further object “to the portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Order allowing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint.”? Defendants are correct that the Magistrate Judge was without jurisdiction to rule on the motion to dismiss.4 Accordingly, the Court will vacate the Order to the extent it purports to rule on any defendants’ motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, following a review of this matter, the Court ' See ECF No. 28. 2 ECF No. 31-1 at 7; see also ECF No. 32-1 at 2. J ECF No. 31 at 2. The sole basis for the latter objection is that the Magistrate Judge “granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint without making a report and recommendation to the Court with respect to the DA Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.” ECF No. 31-1 at 6 (footnote omitted). 4 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Lawson v. Stephens, 900 F.3d 715 (5" Cir. 2018); see also ECF Nos. 20, 25. agrees with the substance of the Order, in that it finds Plaintiff should have “at least one opportunity to cure pleading deficiencies” before this suit is dismissed.*> Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Objections [ECF No. 31] are SUSTAINED to the extent Defendants seek to vacate that part of the Magistrate Judge’s Order which purported to rule on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the Court VACATES that portion of the Order with respect to all motions to dismiss. The Objections are OVERRULED to the extent Defendants seek to vacate the portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Order granting Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint. In light of the forgoing, Defendants’ Motion to Vacate the Order [ECF No. 32] is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to dismiss [ECF Nos. 16, 18 and 23] are DENIED without prejudice to Defendants’ right to re-urge the motions following a review of the amended complaint. THUS DONE in Chambers on this ( At day of June, 2023. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE > Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanly Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 329 (5 Cir. 2002). Page 2 of 2