Roy v. NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying 30 Motion for Reconsideration Re: 27 Order on Motion for Reconsideration. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.(dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven J. Roy
v.

Civil No. 12-cv-303-JD

William Wrenn, et al.
O R D E R
Steven J. Roy has filed a motion to reconsider the order,
dated February 13, 2013, granting, in part, his prior motion for
reconsideration.

In support, Roy apologizes for the lateness of

his objection to the report and recommendation and argues that
the court misapprehended his claims.

The defendants object.

In his motion for reconsideration, Roy argues that the
persistence of rumors of his past misuse of computers constituted
retaliation against him by the defendants that resulted in
civilian staff refusing to hire him.

He also argues that the

disciplinary measures imposed on him by Major Fouts were the
result of the computer misuse rumor, not because he was found to
have contraband.1

1

He contends that both were retaliation.

Roy disputes the court’s interpretation of a disciplinary
report that refers to “MAJOR”. Although Roy’s interpretation
appears to be correct, that difference does not change the
outcome.

Roy does not explain why the defendants allegedly retaliated
against him but refers to “CLAIM #1" in his amended complaint.
In Claim 1, Roy alleges retaliation because of his successful
lawsuit, apparently referring to Roy v. Stanley, No. 02-cv-555-JD
(“Roy II”), which settled in 2005.

Roy provides no plausible

factual basis to support an inference of retaliation against him
because of his success in Roy II or in any of his prior
litigation.

Therefore, he provides no basis to reconsider his

retaliation claim to include these additional theories.
In addition, Roy challenges the determination that he did
not state a cognizable negligence claim.

He argues that he

provided factual allegations to support his negligence claim, but
the paragraphs he cites, paragraphs 48 and 49, pertain to the
hearing on charges of sexual misconduct.

Therefore, Roy provides

no basis to reconsider that determination.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration (document no. 30) is denied.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
March 11, 2013
cc:

Steven J. Roy #68033
Nancy J. Smith, Esquire
2