Rodriguez v. Providence Police Department, et al

Filing 48

ORDER re: 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as to 1 Complaint, filed by Alberto Rodriguez, 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as to 19 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or in the alternative for Summary Judgment filed by Office of Info rmation & Privacy, 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as to 15 MOTION for Default Judgment as to filed by Alberto Rodriguez, and 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Office of Information & Privacy. So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 8/2/10. (Jackson, Ryan)

Rodriguez v. Providence Police Department, et al

Doc. 48

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND -----------------ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. PROVIDENCE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. -----------------) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 08-03 S

ORDER William E. Smith, United States District Judge. On January 19, 2010, this matter was heard before the Court, along with other related matters. At that time, the Court

instructed Plaintiff that he was permitted file objections, within the next thirty days, to certain Reports and Recommendations ("R&R") issued by Magistrate Judge Jacob Hagopian on June 23, 2009. It has now come to the Court's attention that when Plaintiff filed those objections on February 5, 2010, within the 30-day time frame, they were inadvertently determined to be out of time and, That

consequently, dismissed by text order, on February 10, 2010. order is hereby withdrawn.

Magistrate Judge Hagopian issued three R&Rs on June 23, 2009. One R&R (EFC No. 22) recommended the denial of Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against all Defendants. objected to this R&R (EFC No. 37). Plaintiff has now

A second R&R (EFC No. 24)

recommended that Plaintiff's civil rights claims against Providence

Dockets.Justia.com

police officers be dismissed as time barred. objects to this recommendation (EFC No. 37). The final R&R (EFC No. 23) recommended

Plaintiff also

that

the

U.S.

Government's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's various FOIA1 requests be denied without prejudice. Defendants have subsequently filed a

motion for summary judgment on the subject of the FOIA requests (EFC No. 36), which has been referred to Magistrate Judge Hagopian for disposition. Plaintiff has not objected to the substance of

the R&R, but has instead responded to the motion for summary judgment (EFC No. 39). The Court intends to proceed as follows: Plaintiff's

objections to the R&Rs concerning the requested default judgment and the civil rights complaint against Providence police officers will be considered and a decision rendered. The various issues

concerning the FOIA requests have not been objected to by the Government, and it is adopted; the arguments raised by the

Government will be analyzed in the context of the Government's motion for summary judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ William E. Smith

William E. Smith United States District Judge Date: August 2, 2010

1

The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. 2