Opinion
C.A. No. 05-433 ML.
March 14, 2006
Report and Recommendation
Plaintiff Oliver Lyons, pro se, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his Constitutional rights. Plaintiff named as defendants employees or officials at the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, Adult Correctional Institutions. Currently before the Court is the motion of the plaintiff for preliminary injunctive relief. Defendants have objected thereto. This matter has been referred to me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for a report and recommendation. For the reasons that follow, I recommend that plaintiff's motion be denied.
Discussion
In his Complaint, plaintiff alleges a hodgepodge of allegations. The District Court dismissed a majority of the defendants from the lawsuit pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The only claims that remain are plaintiff's claims of retaliation by defendants Barney, Raposa, and Delaney and plaintiff's claims of an Eighth Amendment violation by defendant Lombardi.
Plaintiff filed the instant motion for preliminary injunctive relief complaining of physical abuse by defendant Lombardi while confined at the Adult Correctional Institutions. By way of the instant motion, plaintiff seeks an order from the Court enjoining further physical abuse by Lombardi. Plaintiff, however, is no longer confined at the Adult Correctional Institutions. Plaintiff is presently confined at a prison in New Hampshire. Thus, plaintiff no longer faces the alleged physical abuse at the Adult Correctional Institutions by defendant Lombardi. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief is moot, and should be denied. I so recommend.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief be denied. Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be specific and must be filed with the Clerk of Court within ten days of its receipt. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); LR Cv. 72(d). Failure to file timely, specific objections to the report constitutes waiver of both the right to review by the district court and the right 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 (1st Cir. 1980).