[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-281307-105":53,"doc-detail-281307-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","andrenique-howard-v-louisiana-workforce-commission-magistrate-judges-report-and-recommendation","Andrenique Howard v. Louisiana Workforce Commission - Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation","","Notice and filing instructions accompany a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The filing notifies parties that written objections to proposed findings, conclusions of law, and recommendations must be submitted within fourteen days after service, with no extensions permitted. The Report addresses Plaintiff Andrenique Howard’s civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, focusing on requests for medical and employment-related documents from multiple named defendants.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/andrenique-howard-v-louisiana-workforce-commission-magistrate-judges-report-and-recommendation/281307/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/andrenique-howard-v-louisiana-workforce-commission-magistrate-judges-report-and-recommendation/281307.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Alex Sinclair","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-20","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":30},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What deadline applies to filing written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"Written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the attached Report.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What happens if written objections are not filed within 14 days?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"Failure to file objections within 14 days bars, except on plain error grounds, an appeal attacking the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What does the complaint primarily seek from the defendants?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"The complaint focuses on requests for records, including medical and related employment documents, from each of the named defendants.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},281307,1790226304,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":30,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":76},1099523882182,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","Case 3:24-cv-00898-BAJ-RLB Document 18 03/10/25 Page 1 of 7  \nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nMIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA  \nANDRENIQUE HOWARD CIVIL ACTION  \nVERSUS NO. 24-898-BAJ-RLB  \nLOUISIANA WORKFORCE  \nCOMMISSION, ET AL.  \nNOTICE  \nPlease take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge’s Report has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court.  \nIn accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions ofthe Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.  \nABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT.  \nSigned in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 10, 2025.  \n~~S~~  \nRICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.  \nUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE  \nCase 3:24-cv-00898-BAJ-RLB Document 18 03/10/25 Page 2 of 7  \nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nMIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA  \nANDRENIQUE HOWARD CIVIL ACTION  \nVERSUS NO. 24-898-BAJ-RLB  \nLOUISIANA WORKFORCE  \nCOMMISSION, ET AL.  \nMAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION  \nBefore the Court is Andrenique Howard’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (the “Complaint”) . (R. Doc. 1) . The defendants have not made appearances in this action.  \nAlso before the Court are Plaintiff’s Brief Motion to Amend the Request for Court Date of January 15, 2025 to February 21, 2025 Confirmed and Reason Lawsuit Filed (R. Doc. 14), Motion to Issue the Summons to Defendants to Have Them Deliver the Documents Needed to the Plaintiff Due to State and Federal Crime and Tampered Evidence and Spoliation and Missing Documents (R. Doc. 15), Motion to Compel Discovery Evidence of Employee Documents (R. Doc. 16), and Motion to Request to E-file (R. Doc. 17) .  \nThis Court has granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Preparing Fees or Costs, but withheld service of process by the U.S. Marshal Service. (R. Docs. 2; 6). As Plaintiff is now proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”), the undersigned has performed areview, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), to determine whether Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed as frivolous or whether it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.  \nI. Nature of the Plaintiff’s Allegations  \nOn October 28, 2024, Plaintiff commenced this action against (1) the Louisiana Workforce Commission; (2) the Social Security Office; (3) Healthy Blue; (4) the Louisiana  \nCase 3:24-cv-00898-BAJ-RLB Document 18 03/10/25 Page 3 of 7  \nMedicaid Office; (5) the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals; (6) Jack in the Box;1 and (7) the Police Department Records Department. (R. Doc. 1) . Plaintiff filed this action on a form complaint intended for use by pro se litigants in non-prisoner civil rights litigation. It identifies this case as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s allegations, however, involve her alleged requests for medical documents from each of the defendants.  \nAccording to the Complaint, Plaintiff has “reported to all the[ defendants], concerning the hospitals and clinics ignoring [her] health, but got paid for it, and when [she] asked for [her] records [they] denied [her] when [she] asked for records [for] 2012-2024.”(R. Doc. 1) . Thus, in the Complaint, Plaintiff is seeking records from each of the defendants, as follows:  \nx Louisiana Workforce Commission: “all records employers send concerning employees to company, all records with [Plaintiff], from 2003-2004, all records of unemployment records from 2003-2024, checks, transactions, applications, etc.”  \nx Social Security Office: “Medicaid record","cbCair1aOR9TISmS","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCair1aOR9TISmS","pdf",341232,7,"English","# Notice\n## Objections deadline and consequences\n# Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation\n## Plaintiff’s allegations and requested records\n## Review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)","[{\"question\":\"What deadline applies to filing written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report?\",\"answer\":\"Written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the attached Report.\"},{\"question\":\"What happens if written objections are not filed within 14 days?\",\"answer\":\"Failure to file objections within 14 days bars, except on plain error grounds, an appeal attacking the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the complaint primarily seek from the defendants?\",\"answer\":\"The complaint focuses on requests for records, including medical and related employment documents, from each of the named defendants.\"}]","Andrenique Howard v. Louisiana Workforce Commission - Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation | PDF",1789565437]