Peters v. NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner

Filing 16

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 15 Motion to Amend, recommending the district judge should deny the motion to amend (doc. no. 15) as futile, to the extent it seeks to add legislators as defendants. The remaining relief requested in the motion to amend should be denied without prejudice to refiling in a separate motion to amend. See LR 7.1(a)(1). Follow up on Objections to R&R on 5/21/2015. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone.(ko)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Matthew W. Peters
v.

Civil No. 15-cv-025-LM

William L. Wrenn, New Hampshire
Department of Corrections Commissioner

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is the motion to amend the complaint (doc.
no. 15) filed by New Hampshire State Prison inmate Matthew W.
Peters, seeking to add state legislators as defendants to claims
challenging a state law that Peters asserts violates his federal
rights, and also seeking to amend the complaint’s prayer for
relief by adding a request for payment of legal expenses, and
for a court-ordered amendment to the state law at issue and
revisions to prison procedures relating to “qualifications.”
The court may deny a motion to amend “for any adequate
reason apparent from the record,” including futility of the
proposed amendment.

Todisco v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 497 F.3d

95, 98 (1st Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).

“Officials performing legislative functions have

absolute immunity from suit and liability under section 1983.”

Figueroa-Serrano v. Ramos-Alverio, 221 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.
2000).

Accordingly, the district judge should deny the motion

to amend (doc. no. 15) as futile, to the extent it seeks to add
legislators as defendants.

The remaining relief requested in

the motion to amend should be denied without prejudice to
refiling in a separate motion to amend.

See LR 7.1(a)(1).

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

See Fed.

Failure to file objections within the

specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s
order.

See United States v. De Jesús-Viera, 655 F.3d 52, 57

(1st Cir. 2011); Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 617
F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010).

__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
May 4, 2015
cc:

Matthew W. Peters, pro se

2