Lu v. Menino et al

Filing 45

Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. (Bowler, Marianne)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
FRIEDRICH LU,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
14-13053-LTS

THOMAS M. MENINO, MARTIN J. WALSH, WILLIAM
F. SINNOTT, EUGENE L. O’FLAHERTY, CAROLINE
O. DRISCOLL, DAVID WATERFALL, GEORGE HULME,
BERTHE M. GAINES, DONNA M. DEPRISCO, ANGELO
M. SCACCIA, JAMES CARROLL, KARYN M. WILSON,
JEFFREY B. RUDMAN, ZAMAWA ARENAS, A. RAYMOND
TYE, EVELYN ARANA-ORTIZ, PAUL LA CAMERA,
CAROL FULP, BYRON RUSHING, DENNIS LEHANE,
JOHN T. HAILER, LAURA DEBONIS, JOHN DUNLAP,
PAUL CURRAN, AMY E. RYAN, BOSTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE,
BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY, BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, BOSTON PUBLIC HEALTH COMMISSION,
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY,
Defendants.
PROCEDURAL ORDER
March 5, 2015

BOWLER, U.S.M.J.
On March 2, 2015, this court issued a Report and
Recommendation on a number of pending motions including an
amended motion to dismiss (Docket Entry # 17) filed by the
following defendants:

Thomas M. Menino, Martin J. Walsh, William

F. Sinnott, Eugene L. O’Flaherty, Caroline O. Driscoll, David
Waterfall, George Hulme, Berthe M. Gaines, Donna M. Deprisco,
Angelo M. Scaccia, James Carroll, Karyn M. Wilson, Jeffrey B.
Rudman, Zamawa Arenas, A. Raymond Tye, Evelyn Arana-Ortiz, Paul
La Camera, Carol Fulp, Byron Rushing, Dennis Lehane, John T.

Hailer, Laura Debonis, John Dunlap, Paul Curran, Amy E. Ryan, the
Boston School Committee (“BSC”) and the Trustees of the Boston
Public Library (“the Trustees”).

The Report and Recommendation

recommended allowing the motion.
In describing the amended motion to dismiss, however, the
body of the opinion omits including BSC and the Trustees as
entities that filed the amended motion.

It also omits BSC and

the Trustees from the definition of “the City defendants.”

The

arguments to support allowing the motion are not affected by the
omissions and remain the same.

In light of the omissions,

however, this court will sua sponte extend the 14 day time period
to file objections to the Report and Recommendation by an
additional three days.

Accordingly, the following schedule shall

apply to filing objections and to responding to any objections.
This new schedule shall replace the schedule set on page 46 of
the Report and Recommendation.
Any objections to the Report and Recommendation must be
filed with the Clerk of Court within 17 days of receipt of the
Report and Recommendation to which objection is made and the
basis for such objection.

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

Any party may

respond to another party’s objections within ten days after
service of the objections.

Failure to file objections within the

specified time waives the right to appeal the order.
Finally, as explained in the Report and Recommendation

2

(Docket Entry # 41, pp. 29, 46), defendant Boston Housing
Authority remains as a defendant in Count Four.

This court will

issue a scheduling order, if necessary, after the district judge
issues a decision with respect to the Report and Recommendation.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

/s/ Marianne B. Bowler
MARIANNE B. BOWLER
United States Magistrate Judge

3