The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
THOMAS L D’AQUIN, CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff
VERSUS NO. 25-613
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF SECTION: “E” (3)
REVENUE, ET AL.,
Defendants
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff Thomas L D’Aquin’s (“Plaintiff”) objections1 to
Magistrate Judge Eva Dossier’s Report and Recommendations2 regarding dismissal of the
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. After considering the complaint, the record, the applicable law, Magistrate
Dossier’s Report and Recommendations, Plaintiff’s objections, and having conducted a
de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendations to which objections
are made as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections
and approves the Report and Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion in this matter.
Magistrate judges are empowered by statute to preside over certain pretrial matters
upon appointment by a district judge.3 A district court evaluating a magistrate judge's
recommendation may adopt those portions of the recommendation to which no specific
objection is made, as long as those sections are not clearly erroneous.4 However, where a
party makes “specific, written objections”, the district court must undertake de novo review
1 R. Doc. 13-15.
2 R. Doc. 12.
3 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
4 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
of those contested aspects of the report.5 The district judge may then “accept, reject, or
modify the recommended decision; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this suit against the Louisiana Department of Revenue, Miranda
Scroggins, Luke Morris, Governor Jeff Landry, and State Treasurer Richard Nelson.6 The
complaint alleges that the defendants contacted Plaintiff in 2019 concerning Louisiana
tax liabilities.7 Plaintiff responded with evidence of Mississippi residency to rebut the
alleged liabilities, but Defendants still suspended his Louisiana driver’s license.8 The
parties litigated the case before the Louisiana State Board of Tax appeals, eventually
reaching a settlement agreement.9 Defendants later seized Plaintiff’s 2023 and 2024 tax
refunds and Social Security funds, which Plaintiff alleges violated the settlement
agreement.10
LAW
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires summary dismissal sua sponte should the Court
determine that a case is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
As Magistrate Judge Dossier correctly notes, a complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted when it does not contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”11 A claim has facial plausibility when
5 Id.
6 R. Docs. 1, 6, 11.
7 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 9.
8 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 10-11.
9 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 12. Plaintiff filed a copy of a joint motion to dismiss his tax appeal that acknowledges the
existence of a settlement agreement, but the settlement agreement itself has not been filed. R. Doc. 11 at 5.
10 R. Doc. 6, ¶ 15.
11 R. Doc. 12 at 3 (citing Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013).
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”12
ANALYSIS
I. Plaintiff’s Objections to Dismissal of § 1983 Claims
The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Dossier’s recommendation to dismiss
plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the Louisiana Department of Revenue (“Department”).
The Magistrate Judge suggests dismissal because claims against the Department are
subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity.13 Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate’s findings,
claiming that by “entering a settlement and seizing Social Security benefits, the
Department triggered federal jurisdiction under § 1983 and the Supremacy Clause.”14 But
this Court does not find this objection persuasive. Magistrate Judge Dossier cites ample
case law demonstrating that the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff’s claims against the
Department,15 and Plaintiff fails to directly address these arguments. Accordingly, the
Court will dismiss this claim.
Plaintiff named Landry and Nelson as defendants but alleges only that they “acted
outside of their lawful authority” and that Landry threatened him with probation.16 These
allegations do not contain any facts that would support Plaintiff’s claims against them
under § 1983. As Magistrate Judge Dossier stated, “when a plaintiff merely lists a
defendant in a complaint but makes no factual allegations, he has failed to state a specific
claim against that defendant.”17 As a result, the Court also will dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983
12 Id (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
13 R. Doc. 12 at 4.
14 R. Doc. 14 at 1.
15 R. Doc. 12 at 4.
16 R. Doc. 14 at 1.
17 Id. (citing Guillotte v. Lafourche Par., No. 21-1400, 2022 WL 775339, at *4 (E.D. La. Feb. 11, 2022)).
claims against Landry and Nelson.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s objections repeat the same general allegations in his
complaint. In response to the Magistrate Judge stating that Plaintiff’s allegations
regarding the alleged taking claim were conclusory, Plaintiff merely repeats his allegation
that defendants seized his tax refunds and claims this violated his due process rights.18
This Court fails to see how an objection that merely repeats Plaintiff’s conclusory
allegations shows that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss is incorrect.
II. Plaintiff’s Objections to Dismissal of State Law Negligence and Breach
of Contract Claims
Magistrate Judge Dossier also recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s state law
negligence and breach of contract claims. This Court agrees. Once again, Plaintiff’s
objections do not demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge was incorrect in her
recommendation. Rather, his objections merely repeat his conclusory allegations that he
has made throughout his original complaint and multiple amended complaints. For
example, in his objections, Plaintiff states that “defendants breached a judicially-
connected settlement” and reiterated his claims against Scroggins, Morris, and Landry.19
His objections fail to address the Magistrate Judge’s findings that his allegations are too
vague to state a plausible state law claim. Accordingly, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s
state law claims should be dismissed, as well.
To the extent there are findings by Magistrate Judge Dossier that Plaintiff did not
object to, this Court finds that they are not clearly erroneous.
18 R. Doc. 14 at 1.
19 R. Doc. 14 at 1-2.
CONCLUSION
After conducting a de novo review of the issues raised by Plaintiffs objections to
Magistrate Judge’s Dossier’s Report and Recommendations, the Court overrules those
objections and adopts Magistrate Judge Dossier’s Report and Recommendations.2°
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint of Thomas L D’Aquin be and hereby is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 16th day of September, 2025.
SUSIE clog
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20 Additionally, this Court dismisses Plaintiffs Motion for Expedited Consideration and Immediate Ruling
as moot. R. Doc. 10. Furthermore, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions and a Cease and Desist Order
against Defendants on September 5, 2025, as well as a Supplemental Motion for Sanctions on September
13, 2025. R. Docs. 16, 17. These motions contain new allegations of unlawful conduct by certain state
officials. Such new claims may not be raised in Plaintiffs objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations. These motions are DENIED.