Ives et al v. Tyler et al

Filing 10

Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. As follows: For the reasons stated, the court, upon de novo review, hereby ADOPTS the R&R. (Dkt. No. 8 ). Plaintiffs claims in this suit are precluded in light of the identity of the claims an d parties in case number 17-cv-30101 and the final judgement entered therein. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980) (Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issue s that were or could have been raised in that action.); Bezanson v. Bayside Enterps., Inc., 922 F.2d 895,904 (1st Cir.1990).., 324 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 2003) ([A] court on notice that it has previously decided an issue may dismiss the action sua spo nte, consistent with the res judicata policy of avoiding judicial waste.) Finally, the court echoes Judge Robertsons warning that further vexatious or duplicate law suits may result in injunctions on further suits. (See R&R at 3-5). The clerk of court is respectfully directed to enter an order of dismissal and close the case. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
TAMMY IVES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LINDA TYER, et al.,
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No. 17-30143-MGM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(Dkt. No. 8)
February 5, 2018
MASTROIANNI, U.S.D.J.
Tammy Ives and William D. Bean (“Plaintiffs”), acting pro se, bring this action against Linda
Tyer and Mark Blaisdell (“Defendants”), both municipal officers in the City of Pittsfield. (Dkt. No.
1). This is the third of four actions filed in recent months by Plaintiffs and the second suit alleging
the same underlying facts as to these Defendants. The prior action on the same facts has been
dismissed and is currently under appeal. See Case No. 17-cv-30101, appeal filed, 17-2151.
After granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the instant suit, Magistrate
Judge Katherine A. Robertson sua sponte recommended that the court dismiss the action as barred
under res judicata. 1 (Dkt. No. 8, (“R&R”).) Judge Robertson’ January 10, 2018, R&R advised Plaintiff
that any objections thereto were due 14 days later, on January 24, 2018, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b). (Id. at 5, n. 3). Plaintiff has not filed objections.
Based upon the thorough analysis presented in the R&R, and noting there are no objections,
the court, upon de novo review, hereby ADOPTS the R&R. (Dkt. No. 8). Plaintiffs’ claims in this suit
1

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) directs courts to dismiss actions that are malicious or frivolous, fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

are precluded in light of the identity of the claims and parties in case number 17-cv-30101 and the
final judgement entered therein. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980) (“Under res judicata, a
final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues
that were or could have been raised in that action.”); Bezanson v. Bayside Enterps., Inc., 922 F.2d 895,
904 (1st Cir.1990).., 324 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 2003) (“[A] court on notice that it has previously
decided an issue may dismiss the action sua sponte, consistent with the res judicata policy of avoiding
judicial waste.”) Finally, the court echoes Judge Robertson’s warning that further vexatious or
duplicate law suits may result in injunctions on further suits. (See R&R at 3-5).
The clerk of court is respectfully directed to enter an order of dismissal and close the case.
It is So Ordered.
_/s/ Mark G. Mastroianni________
MARK G. MASTROIANNI
United States District Judge

2