ANCTIL v. FITZPATRICK et al

Filing 114

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION denying 83 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 83 Motion for TRO; adopting 88 Report and Recommended Decision By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (CCS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
STEVE ANCTIL, JR.
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISIONER JOSEPH
FITZPATRICK, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:16-cv-00107-JAW

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION
On February 5, 2018, Steve Anctil, Jr. filed a motion for preliminary injunction
and motion for temporary restraining order against the Defendants to “ensure that
his designated legal mail is no longer opened outside of his presence[,], read and, or
photocopied by prison staff.” Mem. of Law in Support of Pl.’s Mot. for a TRO and
Prelim. Inj. at 1 (ECF No. 83). On February 20, 2018, the Defendants responded to
Mr. Anctil’s motions. Opp’n to Mot. for TRO and Prelim. Inj. (ECF No. 84). On April
10, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommended decision, recommending that
the Court deny the motions. Recommended Decision on Pl.’s Mot. for Injunctive Relief
(ECF No. 88).
Any objection from Mr. Anctil to the recommended decision was initially due
within fourteen days of being served with the a copy of the recommended decision.
Id. at 8. On April 27, 2018, Mr. Anctil filed a motion to extend time within which to
file an objection in which he asserted that prison officials were denying him access to
legal materials “indefinitely.” Pl.’s Mot. for Extension of Time to File Obj. (ECF No.

89). He requested that the Court “grant him an extension of fourteen (14) days, from
the date that he is provided with renewed, as well as adequate and meaningful, access
to legal materials . . . .” Id. at 3. On May 1, 2018, the Defendants filed a partial
objection.

Resp. to Mot. to Enlarge Time (ECF No. 91).

On May 2, 2018, the

Magistrate Judge granted Mr. Anctil’s motion, thereby extending the time for the
filing of an objection to June 15, 2018. Order (ECF No. 92).
On May 29, 2018, Mr. Anctil filed a motion for stay and a motion to reset
deadlines. Pl.’s Mot. for Stay of Action (ECF No. 98). On June 5, 2018, the Defendants
filed their opposition to the motion for stay. Opp’n to Mot. for Stay (ECF No. 102).
On June 28, 2018, the Magistrate Judge denied the motion for stay but granted the
motion to extend the time within which to file an objection to the recommended
decision on Mr. Anctil’s motion for TRO and preliminary injunction to July 13, 2018.
Order on Pl.’s Mot. to Stay (ECF No. 108).
Mr. Anctil did not file an objection by July 13, 2018. He did, however, file a
motion for reconsideration of the order on his motion to stay. Mot. for Recons. of
Order on Pl.’s Mot. to Stay (ECF No. 110). On July 22, 2018, the Magistrate Judge
denied his motion for reconsideration. Order Denying Mot. for Recons. (ECF No. 112).
From this history, Mr. Anctil’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s April 10,
2018 recommended decision, recommending that the Court deny his motion for TRO
and motion for preliminary injunction was due on or before July 13, 2018. By failing
to file a timely objection to the April 10, 2018 recommended decision, Mr. Anctil has
waived the right to object to the recommended disposition.

2

Despite Mr. Anctil’s failure to make a timely objection, the Court still
performed a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision dated
April 10, 2018 (ECF No. 88) and the Court AFFIRMS the recommended decision for
the reasons set forth in the recommended decision. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 83).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 1st day of August, 2018

3