Ojo v. Hillsborough County Department of Corrections, Superintendent et al

Filing 81

ORDER approving 78 Report and Recommendation: denying 55 and 64 Motions for Summary Judgment. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante.(dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Osahenrumwen Ojo
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-210-JL

Eldin Medic, et al.

O R D E R
After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith
approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Landya B.
McCafferty dated December 17, 2012.
The court has carefully reviewed the record and the Report and
Recommendation, and makes the following, somewhat tangential,
observations.

First, the court is struggling to understand why the

grievance policy in question is summarized in an affidavit, as
opposed to provided with the record, or quoted verbatim.

Second,

while the defendants have demonstrated that the plaintiff filed
several inmate request slips regarding various issues in the period
following the incident in questions, they have not shown (or even
suggested) that the plaintiff filed any “Step 3” grievance documents,
thus establishing his ability to do so with respect to the incident
in question.
“‘[O]nly those issues fairly raised by the objections to the
magistrate's report are subject to review in the district court and
those not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.’”
School Union No. 37 v. United Nat'l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st

Cir. 2010) (quoting Keating v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs.,
848 F.2d 271, 275 (1st Cir.1988));

see also United States v.

Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986) (after proper notice,
failure to file a specific objection to magistrate's report will
waive the right to appeal).
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Joseph N. Laplante
Chief Judge
Date: February 14, 2013
cc:

Osahenrumwen Ojo, pro se
John Curran, Esq.