TAYLOR v. WALL

2005 | Cited 0 times | D. Rhode Island | August 29, 2005

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Thaddeus Taylor, a Connecticut inmate confined at theRhode Island Department of Corrections, filed an AmendedComplaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prisonofficials violated his constitutional rights. On May 9, 2005plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary injunction order seekingto be transferred to the protective custody unit at the RhodeIsland Department of Corrections. A.T. Wall objected to themotion, indicating that the plaintiff was, in fact, "housedwithin a single cell within the protective custody unit."Accordingly, I issued a Report and Recommendation on June 6, 2005recommending that the motion be denied as moot, since theplaintiff received the relief he sought.

Plaintiff thereafter timely filed an objection to the Reportand Recommendation, indicating he had not been transferred to theprotective custody unit as defendant Wall had indicated. TheDistrict Court thereafter remanded this matter to me to determinewhether there is an issue of fact to be resolved, namely, whetherthe plaintiff is, or is not, housed in protective custody. On August 2, 2005, I issued an Order directing defendant Wallto detail, by way of affidavit, where the plaintiff is confinedand I also provided the pro se plaintiff with an opportunity torespond to Wall's affidavit. Wall complied and indicated that"[i]nmate Taylor is currently housed in the protective custodyunit. . . ." See Wall Affidavit at ¶ 9. Plaintiff provided aReply to the affidavit, wherein he now concedes that he isconfined in the protective custody unit and that his motion for atemporary injunction order is moot. See Plaintiff's Reply at 5.

Accordingly, I recommend that the plaintiff's motion for atemporary injunction order be denied as moot. Any objection tothis Report and Recommendation must be specific and must be filedwith the Clerk of Court within ten days of its receipt. Fed R.Civ. P. 72(b); Local Rule 32. Failure to filed timely, specificobjections to this report constitutes waiver of both the right toreview by the district court and the right to appeal the districtcourt's decision. United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4(1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. FordMotor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1980).

Back to top