Seguin v. Textron, Inc. et al

Filing 174

ORDER adopting #158 Report and Recommendations and granting Defendants' #69 Motion for Temporary Stay, and #73 , #109 , #119 Joinder Motions for Temporary Stay; and, imposing in this case a limited filing restriction upon the Plaintiff as set forth in the attached Order. -- Unless otherwise ordered by this court, Defendants need not respond to any notice, pleading, or motion currently pending or filed by Plaintiff after the date of this order while this filing restriction remains in effect. -- In addition, to the extent Plaintiff has included multiple distinct motions for relief of various kinds in her objection to the Report and Recommendation, those motions are all denied without prejudice. So Ordered by Judge Steven J McAuliffe (New Hampshire) on 11/6/2013. (Duhamel, John)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Mary Seguin
v.

Case No. 13-cv-12-SJM-LM

Textron, Inc., et al.
O R D E R
After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith
approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Landya
B. McCafferty dated October 17, 2013, for the reasons set forth
therein.

In addition, to the extent plaintiff has included

multiple distinct motions for relief of various kinds in her
objection the Report and Recommendation, those motions are all
denied without prejudice.
I hereby grant the defendants’ motions for a temporary stay
(document nos. 69, 73, 109, and 119) and I am imposing, in this
case, a limited filing restriction upon the plaintiff, as set
forth below:
1. Plaintiff is ordered to cease filing any motions,
pleadings, notices, or other documents after the date of
this order, until the district court rules on each pending
motion to dismiss (document nos. 89 and 91-93), except as
follows:
a. Plaintiff may file one objection or other
response to each motion filed by defendants while this
filing restriction remains in effect, within the time
allowed by LR Cv 7(b);
b. Plaintiff may file one objection to each of
defendants’ September 6, 2013, motions to dismiss
(document nos. 89 and 91-93) while this filing

restriction remains in effect, within the time allowed
by the court for filing that objection;
c. If the magistrate judge issues a report and
recommendation on each pending motion to dismiss
(document nos. 89 and 91-93), plaintiff may file on
objection to each report and recommendation and one
response to any other party’s objection, as provided by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
d. If the magistrate judge issues an order as to
any nondispositive matter while this filing restriction
remains in effect, plaintiff may file one objection to
that order and one response to any other party’s
objection, as provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and LR
Cv 72.2;
e. Plaintiff may file a motion to extend the
deadlines set forth herein, demonstrating good cause
for extending those deadlines, and
f. Plaintiff may file a motion seeking the
court’s leave to file another document, in accordance
with Paragraph 2 below.
2. Except as to the motions, objections, and responses
listed in Paragraphs 1(a)-(f) of this order, which plaintiff
may file without first seeking the court’s leave, while this
filing restriction remains in effect, this court may
summarily deny any motion and/or strike any document filed
by plaintiff, unless plaintiff simultaneously files a motion
seeking the court’s leave to file that document or motion.
In her motion seeking such leave to file, plaintiff must
demonstrate the basis upon which she asserts a right or need
to file the document/motion at issue, and she must attach
the document/motion she proposes to file as an exhibit to
the motion requesting leave.
3. Unless otherwise ordered by this court, defendants need
not respond to any notice, pleading, or motion currently
pending, or filed by plaintiff after the date of this order,
while this filing restriction remains in effect.
4. Unless otherwise ordered by this court, the conditions
and restrictions set forth in Paragraphs 1-3 of this order
shall terminated when the district judge either rules on
each motion to dismiss (document nos. 89 and 91-93), or
accepts, rejects, or modifies the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation on each of those motions to dismiss,
whichever occurs first.
2

SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
November 6, 2013
cc:

Mary Seguin, pro se
Rebecca T. Partington, Esq.
Susan Urso, Esq.
Erika J. Lindberg, Esq.
Mark W. Freel, Esq.
Rachel K. Caldwell, Esq.
Joseph Avanzato, Esq.
Leslie D. Parker, Esq.
Gordon P. Cleary, Esq.

3