Taylor v. Wall

Full title: THADDEUS TAYLOR, pro se, v. A.T. WALL, Director, Rhode Island Department…

Court: United States District Court, D. Rhode Island

Date published: Aug 29, 2005

C.A. No. 05-118 T (D.R.I. Aug. 29, 2005)

Opinion

C.A. No. 05-118 T.

August 29, 2005

Thaddeus Taylor, pro se, Appellant Counselors.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JACOB HAGOPIAN, Recalled Magistrate Judge

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

Plaintiff thereafter timely filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, indicating he had not been transferred to the protective custody unit as defendant Wall had indicated. The District Court thereafter remanded this matter to me to determine whether there is an issue of fact to be resolved, namely, whether the plaintiff is, or is not, housed in protective custody.

On August 2, 2005, I issued an Order directing defendant Wall to detail, by way of affidavit, where the plaintiff is confined and I also provided the pro se plaintiff with an opportunity to respond to Wall's affidavit. Wall complied and indicated that "[i]nmate Taylor is currently housed in the protective custody unit. . . ." See Wall Affidavit at ¶ 9. Plaintiff provided a Reply to the affidavit, wherein he now concedes that he is confined in the protective custody unit and that his motion for a temporary injunction order is moot. See Plaintiff's Reply at 5.

Accordingly, I recommend that the plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction order 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 filed timely, specific objections to this 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 (1^st Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1^st Cir. 1980).