Opinion
11-P-660
03-21-2012
ROBERT GRADY v. THEODORE LARIVIERE & others.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Robert Grady was, at all time relevant to this appeal, an inmate at the Old Colony Correctional Center. At issue is disciplinary report no. 120271, charging Grady with various infractions. After a hearing, Grady was found guilty on one charge -- lying or providing false information -- and was sanctioned to sixty days' loss of telephone privileges. Grady challenged the sanction in the Plymouth Superior Court, which dismissed Grady's certiorari complaint, primarily on limitations grounds. A panel of this court affirmed. See Grady vs. Superintendent, Old Colony Correctional Center, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 1112 (2010).
Six months after the rescript entered on our case, Grady filed his present certiorari complaint in Worcester Superior Court, again asserting various claims in connection with disciplinary report no. 120271. Grady made no reference to the earlier proceedings and counsel for the superintendent apparently was unaware of them, as the proceedings were in different counties. The matter proceeded to a hearing on the merits, with the same result, a dismissal of the complaint. The matter is now here on appeal.
We need not reach the merits. The present matter is nearly identical to the former. As such the principles of res judicata apply, adversely to the plaintiff. See and compare TLT Constr. Corp. v. A. Anthony Tappe & Assocs., Inc., 48 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 10 n.8 (1999).
Judgment of dismissal affirmed.
By the Court (Kantrowitz, Berry & Vuono, JJ.),