Taylor v. Connecticut Department of Corrections

Full title: THADDEUS TAYLOR v. CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF…

Court: United States District Court, D. Rhode Island

Date published: Jun 6, 2005

C.A. No. 05-118 T (D.R.I. Jun. 6, 2005)

Opinion

C.A. No. 05-118 T.

June 6, 2005

Thaddems Taylor, pro se, Attorney(s) for Plaintiff or Petitioner.

Patricia Amne Cogne Fague, Attorney(s) for Defendant or Respondent.

Report and Recommendation

JACOB HAGOPIAN, Recalled Magistrate Judge

Thaddeus Taylor, pro se, a Connecticut inmate incarcerated at the Rhode Island Department of Corrections ("RIDOC"), filed an Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. On May 9, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for a "temporary injunction" wherein he sought to be confined in the protective custody unit at the RIDOC. See Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction, dated April 8, 2005, but filed May 9, 2005. In his filings, plaintiff alleges that he is a former correctional officer and that, as an incarcerated — former correctional officer, he is under a "substantial risk of harm." Moreover, plaintiff alleges in his filings that the RIDOC's personnel have "set [him] up," informing other inmates that he is a former correctional officer while placing him in the general population where he can be assaulted and/or killed.

Considering the allegations, the Court ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve defendant A.T. Wall forthwith and ordered defendant Wall to file a response to plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief. Defendant Wall timely complied. In his objection, defendant Wall indicated that the plaintiff is now housed in the protective custody unit. Accordingly, since the relief that plaintiff sought by way of his May 9, 2005 motion for a temporary injunction has been provided, I recommend that it be denied as moot.

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); Local Rule 32, 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).