Runyon v. Manchester Police Department

Filing 37

/// ORDER approving 31 Report and Recommendation: Claims 1 and 3 (against an unnamed MPD officer) and Claim 7 (against the same unnamed MPD officer and the Manchester Police Department) will proceed forward; all other remaining claims and defendants are hereby dismissed. So Ordered by Judge Steven J. McAuliffe.(jab)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Fred Runyon
v.
Case N o . 12-cv-382-SM
Manchester Police Department, et a l .

O R D E R

No objection having been filed, I herewith approve the Report
and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Landya B . McCafferty dated
March 2 5 , 2013 (document n o . 3 1 ) , for the reasons set forth therein.
Plaintiff’s following claims will proceed:

Claims 1 and 3

(Fourth Amendment unreasonable force and false arrest claims)
asserted against an unnamed Manchester Police Department officer,
and Claim 7 (state law assault and battery claims) asserted against
the same unnamed Manchester Police Department officer and Manchester
Police Department. All other remaining claims and remaining
defendants are hereby dismissed.
“‘[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 N o . 37 v . United Nat'l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 5 5 4 , 564 (1st
Cir. 2010) (quoting Keating v . Secretary of Health & Human Servs.,
848 F.2d 2 7 1 , 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.

Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
Date: April 1 9 , 2013
cc:

Fred Runyon, pro se