BISHOP v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS LLC et al

Filing 46

ORDER adopting 43 Report and Recommended Decision for 27 Motion to Certify Class, Motion to Expedite Ruling filed by HARRY C. BISHOP, III, 28 Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by HARRY C BISHOP, III, 29 Motion to Join filed by HARRY C BISHOP , III, 38 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by MATT D'AUTEUIL, SCOTT LANDRY, SUE CARR, BARBARA ROBERTSHAW, MARIAN ZIMMERMAN. Denying 27 Motion to Certify Class and Motion to Expedite Ruling; denying 28 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 29 Motion to Join; granting 38 Motion for Summary Judgment. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
HARRY C. BISHOP, III,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, INC. )
et als.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

2:16-cv-00172-JAW

ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On September 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommended decision
in this lawsuit in which he recommended that the Court deny Harry C. Bishop, III’s
motion to join, his renewed motion for class certification, and his motion for
appointment of class counsel. Recommended Decision on Pending Mots. at 9 (ECF
No. 43) (Recommended Decision). The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the
Court grant the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Sue Carr, Matt
D’Auteuil, Scott Landry, Barbara Robertshaw, and Marian Zimmerman, all officials
with the Maine Department of Corrections (MDOC), and dismiss the action as moot.
Id.
When Mr. Bishop filed his motion to join on July 11, 2016, he wrote that his
lawsuit faced an immediate risk of mootness because he was scheduled to be released
from custody in less than two weeks. Pl.’s Mot. to Join at 1 (ECF No. 29). On July
26, 2016, the Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that Mr.

Bishop had been released from the custody of the MDOC, and therefore his claims
were moot. Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 38). The Defendants attached an affidavit
dated July 25, 2016, from Scott McCaffery, Director of Classification for the MDOC,
stating that Mr. Bishop had been released from its custody on July 18, 2016. Id.
Attach. 1, Aff. of Scott McCaffery at 1. Mr. Bishop did not respond to the Defendants’
motion. On September 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of
Mr. Bishop’s Complaint on the ground that his transfer from MDOC custody mooted
his claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the corrections
officials. Recommended Decision at 7–9.
In addition, upon issuance of the Recommended Decision on September 19,
2016, the Clerk of Court forwarded a copy of the Recommended Decision to Mr.
Bishop at his last known address, namely the Maine Correctional Center. Mail (ECF
No. 44). On September 28, 2016, the Maine Correctional Center returned the mail to
the Clerk writing that Mr. Bishop was no longer there. Id. The Court concludes,
therefore, that upon release from the Maine Correctional Center, Mr. Bishop failed
to give the Clerk of Court his new address. Parties to litigation have a duty to inquire
periodically regarding the status of the litigation and to keep the court informed of
their current addresses and contact information. Galvan v. Nelson, No. 1:15-cv00285-JAW (D. Me. Aug. 29, 2016) aff’d (D. Me. Sept. 16, 2016); see United States v.
Guerrero, 302 Fed. App’x 769, 771 (10th Cir. 2008); Lewis v. Hardy, 248 Fed. App’x
589, 593 n.1 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Mr. Bishop’s failure to maintain contact
with the Court is a separate basis for affirming the Recommended Decision. In

2

addition, because Mr. Bishop failed to object to the Recommended Decision, he has
waived any objection.
Nevertheless, the Court performed a de novo review of the recommendations
of the Magistrate Judge and has determined that no further proceedings are
necessary. The Court AFFIRMS the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge
for the reasons set forth in the Recommended Decision and issues the following
ORDERS:
(1) The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Join (ECF No. 29);
(2) The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Class Certification (ECF
No. 27);
(3) The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Class Counsel
(ECF No. 28);
(4) The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
38) and DISMISSES1 Plaintiff’s Complaint; and
(5) The Court ORDERS that JUDGMENT shall issue against the Plaintiff and
in favor of Defendants.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 11th day of October, 2016

The Court dismisses the Complaint because it has concluded that the lawsuit is moot. This
Order is not a ruling on the merits of the claims in the lawsuit.
1

3