Ramos v. City of Springfield, et al

Filing 68

Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered as follows: Based upon the thorough analysis presented in the Report and Recommendation, and notingthere are no objections, the court, upon de novo review, hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommend ation. (Dkt. No. 66 .) Based upon this, Defendants motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 53 ) is hereby DENIED. In addition, Plaintiffs counsel is hereby assessed the less severe sanction of court costs in the amount of $1,000.00, due and payable to Clerk, U.S. District Court. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)

Download PDF
Case 3:17-cv-30050-MGM Document 68 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS __________________________________________ ) JONATHAN RAMOS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 17-30050-MGM ) ) CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, POLICE OFFICER ) MATTHEW RIEF, COMMISSIONER JOHN R. ) BARBIERI, MAYOR DOMENIC J. SARNO, ) and OFFICER HERMINIO RIVAS, Jr., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND MAYOR DOMENIC SARNO’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY (Dkt. Nos. 53, 66) January 6, 2021 Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson has recommended that this court deny the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute filed by Defendants City of Springfield and Mayor Domenic J. Sarno, but that the court instead impose a monetary sanction on Plaintiff’s counsel, payable to the court, of $1,000 for failing to prosecute this action and noncompliance with a court order. In short, Judge Robertson concluded that Plaintiff’s conduct in failing to prosecute this action—including noncompliance with a court order requiring a status report regarding a state-court criminal proceeding and discovery delays—“merits a sanction, but . . . does not merit the extreme sanction of dismissal with prejudice.” (Dkt. No. 66 at 6.) The Report and Recommendation notified the parties that they had fourteen days to file any objections. No objections were filed. Based upon the thorough analysis presented in the Report and Recommendation, and noting Case 3:17-cv-30050-MGM Document 68 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 2 there are no objections, the court, upon de novo review, hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 66.) Based upon this, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 53) is hereby DENIED. In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel is hereby assessed the less severe sanction of court costs in the amount of $1,000.00, due and payable to “Clerk, U.S. District Court.” It is So Ordered. _/s/ Mark G. Mastroianni________ MARK G. MASTROIANNI United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?