MCKENNEY v. FARRINTON et al

Filing 9

ORDER affirming 7 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (jwr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ROBERT W. McKENNEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER FARRINTON, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:16-cv-00630-JAW

ORDER AFFIRMING THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
No objection having been filed to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended
Decision issued March 2, 2017 (ECF No. 7), the Recommended Decision is accepted.
Mr. McKenney filed a complaint on December 19, 2016 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that certain corrections officers at the Androscoggin County Jail violated his
due process rights, Compl. Under Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1),
together with a motion for leave to file in forma pauperis. App. to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees and Aff. (ECF No. 2). On January 5, 2017, the Court granted Mr.
McKenney’s motion for leave to file in forma pauperis, Order Granting Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3), and the Clerk of Court sent the Order to Mr.
McKenney.

On January 23, 2017, Mr. McKenney filed a letter with the Court

indicating that he wished to proceed and as a separate attachment an Inmate Request
Form. Indication by Prisoner (ECF No. 4); Inmate Req. Form (ECF No. 5).

On March 2, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a detailed recommended
decision, recommending that this Court dismiss all of Mr. McKenney’s claims except
his claim of retaliation against Defendants Farrinton and Feldman based on a denial
of participation in a work program, and deny Mr. McKenney’s demand for a
preliminary injunction. Recommended Decision After Screening Compl. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A (ECF No. 7). On the same day, the Clerk’s Office mailed
a copy of the Recommended Decision to Mr. McKenney, but on March 17, 2017, the
letter was returned noting that Mr. McKenney was “Released,” “Return to Sender,”
“Not Deliverable as Addressed,” and “Unable to Forward.” Mail (ECF No. 8).
The Clerk’s Office has made a good faith effort to notify Mr. McKenney of a
significant decision in his case, but the Clerk’s Office has been unable to keep him
advised of an important matter because it does not know Mr. McKenney’s
whereabouts. “A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court
apprised of any changes in his mailing address.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441
(9th Cir. 1988). The Court is unaware of Mr. McKenney’s current address and has
no means of attaining it.
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision with an
excess of caution the Court concludes that, even if Mr. McKenney had objected to the
Recommended Decision, the Court would still affirm the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation to dismiss all of Mr. McKenney’s claims against the Defendants with
the exception of the claim of retaliation against Mr. Farrinton and Mr. Feldman based

2

on a denial of participation in a work program. The Court would also deny the motion
for preliminary injunction.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that all claims in the Plaintiff’s Complaint
Under Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1), except the retaliation complaint
against Officer Farrinton and Officer Feldman based on a denial of participation in a
work program be and hereby are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court also
DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 30th day of March, 2017

3