REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On March 11, 2005, plaintiff Normand Bedford filed with theCourt a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and named asdefendants officials or employees at the Rhode Island Departmentof Corrections. Having not effected service on any of the nameddefendants, the District Court issued to Bedford an Order to ShowCause, in writing, why the instant case should not be dismissedto due lack of service of process within the 120 day time period.See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
In response to the Order to Show Cause, plaintiff indicatesthat he attempted to serve the defendants throughinterdepartmental mail. See Plaintiff's Memorandum to ShowCause, at 1-2. However, he was unsuccessful. Id. Plaintiff alsoindicates that he was confined in segregation for almost twomonths of the 120 day period (May 2, 2005 through June 27, 2005).See Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion toShow Cause, at 2. During this time, access to his legal files wasallegedly curtailed. Id. Accordingly, plaintiff seeks anextension of time in which to complete service.
Since the plaintiff was confined in segregation for asignificant amount of time and since during that time access tohis legal materials was allegedly curtailed, I find that theplaintiff has shown cause and I recommend that the plaintiff beprovided an additional sixty days, from the date of this Reportand Recommendation, to effect service of process pursuant toFed.R.Civ.P. 4 on all of the named defendants.
Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must bespecific and must be filed with the Clerk of Court within tendays of its receipt. Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b); Local Rule 32. Failureto filed timely, specific objections to this report constituteswaiver of both the right to review by the district court and theright to appeal the district court's decision. United States v.Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam);Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1stCir. 1980).