Barbosa v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Filing 167

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Plaintiff filed objections [ECF No. 165, 166] to Magistrate Judge Kelly's Reports and Recommendations [ECF Nos. 144, 145, 154, 155, 157] as well as some other materials [ECF Nos. 160, 162, 163, 164] which do not specifically pertain to the Reports and Recommendations, but reference prior allegations and attempt to advance some new allegations. The Defendants have not objected to the Reports and Recommendations. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's objections, as well as the additional materials. After careful consideration of Plaintiff's objections, the supplemental documents, and the Reports and Recommendations, the recommendations are adopted as the opinion of the Cou rt. Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel and motion to file an amended complaint [ECF No. 166] are DENIED. All remaining defendants are dismissed and the case is closed. A copy of this Order has been mailed to the Plaintiff. (Attachments: # 1 145 R & R- Adopted, # 2 154 R & R-Adopted, # 3 155 R & R-Adopted, # 4 157 R&R-Adopted) (Montes, Mariliz)

Case 1:14-cv-13439-ADB Document 145 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

RICARDO MIQUEL
ZEFERINO BARBOSA,
Plaintiff,

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-13439-ADB

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (#139).
KELLEY, U.S.M.J.
This motion has plainly been misfiled. The caption reflects that it relates to a criminal case,
Commonwealth v. Ricardo Barbosa, docket no. 1482-NOCR 0443, in the Norfolk Superior Court
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It seeks relief, to wit, a new trial in a state criminal case,
that cannot be afforded by the federal court in a civil case. Lastly, the motion is incomplete as it
ends in the middle of a sentence on page ten.
For these reasons, I RECOMMEND that the Motion for a New Trial (#139) be DENIED.
Review by District Court Judge.
The parties are hereby advised that any party who objects to this recommendation must file
specific written objections with the Clerk of this Court within 14 days of the party’s receipt of this
Report and Recommendation. The objections must specifically identify the portion of the
recommendation to which objections are made and state the basis for such objections. The parties
are further advised that the United States Court of Appeals for this Circuit has repeatedly indicated

Case 1:14-cv-13439-ADB Document 145 Filed 03/31/17 Page 2 of 2

that failure to comply with Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., shall preclude further appellate review. See
Keating v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 848 F.2d 271 (1st Cir. 1988); United States v.
Emiliano Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986); Scott v. Schweiker, 702 F.2d 13, 14 (1st
Cir. 1983); United States v. Vega, 678 F.2d 376, 378-379 (1st Cir. 1982); Park Motor Mart, Inc.
v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1980); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

/s / M. Page Kelley
M. Page Kelley
United States Magistrate Judge

March 31, 2017

2