The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NADIA WINSTON CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS CASE NO. 21-454
JEFFERSON PARISH HOUSING SECTION: “G”
AUTHORITY, ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
Pending before the Court is Defendants Valerie Pruitt, Soly Rosario, and Michele
Livingston’s (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) “Second Motion to Dismiss.”1 The instant
Motion to Dismiss was noticed for submission on January 12, 2022. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5,
any opposition to a motion must be filed eight days before the noticed submission date.2 Thus,
Plaintiff’s opposition to the instant Motion was due on January 4, 2022. Plaintiff Nadia Winston
has not filed an opposition to the Motion, and therefore the Motion is deemed to be unopposed.
This Court has authority to grant a motion as unopposed, although it not required to do so.3
On October 30, 2021, the Court denied Moving Defendants’ first motion to dismiss.4 The
Court agreed with Moving Defendants that the Complaint failed to state a claim against Moving
Defendants because it did not “allege any facts regarding what actions Pruitt, Rosario, and
Livingston took that entitle Plaintiff to relief.”5 Nevertheless, short of granting the motion, the
1 Rec. Doc. 32.
2 EDLA Local Rule 7.5.
3 Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 356 (5th Cir.1993).
4 Rec. Doc. 31.
5 Id. at 6.
Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to amend the deficiencies identified in the Order, if possible.
To date, Plaintiff has not amended the Complaint. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the
Court’s October 30, 2021 Order,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Moving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED. All claims against Moving Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 25th_ day of January, 2022.
DV errette Sobel. Us
NANNETTE IGLIVETTE BROWN (ur
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT