Dike v. McDonald

Filing 72

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. Any party who objects to the order and memorandum, Doc. No. 69, must file specific written objections thereto with the Clerk of this Court by August 5, 2019.The Clerk shall (1) docket this Order in all three civil actions listed on the caption; (2) mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff Hilary Dike by first-class mail, postage prepaid; and (3) mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff Hilary Dike by certified mail with a return receipt.( Objections to R&R due by 8/5/2019) A copy of this Order has been mailed to Hilary Dike via first and certified mail (#7012 3050 0000 7256 8262)(Montes, Mariliz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

HILARY DIKE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID SHULKIN, Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 16-12547-LTS
Civil No. 17-10509-LTS
Civil No. 17-10779-LTS

ORDER
July 22, 2019
SOROKIN, J.
On September 5, 2018, Magistrate Judge Bowler allowed in open court a motion to
enforce an oral settlement between the parties. See Doc. No. 55. 1 On October 1, 2018, plaintiff
Hilary Dike filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Doc. No. 59. On October 29, 2018, because the September 5 hearing had not been recorded due
to a technical malfunction, Magistrate Judge Bowler entered a memorandum setting forth the
basis for her ruling. Doc. No. 69. On June 17, 2019, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction, finding that Magistrate Judge Bowler’s order “was not a final decision as it
was not reviewed by the district court” and therefore was “not immediately appealable.” Doc.
No. 71 at 1–2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1291; United States v. Univ. of Massachusetts, Worcester,
812 F.3d 35, 44 (1st Cir. 2016).

1

All citations to the docket refer to filings in the first lawsuit, Civil No. 16-12547-LTS.

The Court deems Magistrate Judge Bowler’s order and memorandum, Doc. No. 69, a
report and recommendation that the undersigned should allow the motion to enforce the oral
settlement for the reasons set forth in the memorandum. However, the First Circuit noted that the
memorandum had not “contain[ed] notice to the parties of the deadline for objecting” to its
findings. Doc. No. 71 at 2. Because there exists no transcript of the September 5, 2018, hearing,
there is no record of whether the magistrate judge then provided notice of the deadline to object
to the parties.
Accordingly, any party who objects to the order and memorandum, Doc. No. 69, must
file specific written objections thereto with the Clerk of this Court by August 5, 2019. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b). The written objections must specifically identify the portion of the proposed
findings, recommendations, or report to which objection is made and the basis for such
objections. The parties are further advised that the First Circuit has repeatedly indicated that
failure to comply with Rule 72(b) will preclude further appellate review of this Court’s order
based on this report and recommendation. See Keating v. Secretary of Health and 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).

2

The Clerk shall (1) docket this Order in all three civil actions listed on the caption;
(2) mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff Hilary Dike by first-class mail, postage prepaid; and
(3) mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff Hilary Dike by certified mail with a return receipt.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge

3