Villar v. USA et al

Filing 24

///ORDER approving 21 Amended Report and Recommendation; denying 17 Motion to Amend ; denying 18 Motion for Expansion of Records and Argument; denying 20 Motion to Amend. The Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. So Ordered by US District Judge William E Smith.(vln)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
___________________________________
)
)
RICHARD VILLAR,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________)

C.A. No. 14-CV-491-WES

ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
On

January

14,

2015,

United

States

Magistrate

Judge

Patricia A. Sullivan issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
in

the

above-captioned

matter

recommending

that

Plaintiff’s

Complaint be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

(ECF No. 16.)

Plaintiff subsequently filed

an objection to the R&R (ECF No. 19) and three motions:

Motion

to Amend Complaint Under Rule 15(a) For Add [sic] Evidence and
Arguments

that

Obligations

by

the

Government

Suppressing

Violate
the

[sic]

Criminal

Its
and

Brady/Giglio
Informant

Backgrounds of Certain Witnesses Such As Shauna Harrington (ECF
No. 17); Motion for Expansion of Records and Argument (ECF No.
18); and Motion to Amend Complaint Under Rule 15(a) (ECF No.
20).

Judge Sullivan issued an Amended R&R taking into account

Plaintiff’s

three

motions.

(ECF

No.

21.)

The

Amended

R&R

recommends that Plaintiff’s motions be DENIED as futile, and
that

this

case

be

DISMISSED

WITH

PREJUDICE.

(Id.

at

10.)

Plaintiff filed an objection to the Amended R&R in which he
“incorporate[d]
objection.”

by

reference

[the]

content

of

his

prior

(ECF No. 22.)

Plaintiff’s objection reiterates the facts of his case and
asks

the

Court

however, he

to

fails

consider
to

mount

that
any

he

is

specific

proceeding
objections

pro
to

se;

Judge

Sullivan’s finding that his “complaint was fatally flawed in
that it consisted entirely of a reprise of his failed § 2255
arguments cloaked in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983/Bivens 1 action” and was
furthermore barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
(Am.

R&R

Sullivan

7-8,

ECF

that

No.

even

21.)

The

“employ[ing]

a

Court

concurs

liberal

with

Judge

construction

of

[Plaintiff’s] filing” (id. at 6), he has failed to state a claim
on which relief may be granted.

Because this Court agrees with

Judge Sullivan’s analysis, it hereby accepts, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Amended R&R.
Accordingly,

the

Amended

R&R

is

ADOPTED,

Plaintiff’s

Motions to Amend Complaint Under Rule 15(a) (ECF Nos. 17 and 20)
and Motion for Expansion of Records and Argument (ECF No. 18)
1

Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2

are

DENIED,

and

Plaintiff’s

Complaint

is

DISMISSED

WITH

PREJUDICE. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: September 28, 2015

2

As Judge Sullivan noted, this ruling does not prevent
Plaintiff from appealing the FBI’s partial denial of his Freedom
of Information Act (“FOIA”) request in an appropriate district
court, nor does it bar him from bringing a separate civil action
for that claim. (See Am. R&R 11, ECF No. 21.)
3