Seguin v. Suttell et al

Filing 108

SUMMARY ORDER adopting #70 Report and Recommendations, and granting Defendant's #34 Motion for a Temporary Stay; denying Plaintiff's #74 Motion to Vacate Order of Referral to USMJ MCCafferty; denying Plaintiff's #92 Motion to Vacate Order of Referral to USMJ MCCafferty. -- The Court imposes a narrowly-tailored filing restriction upon the Plaintiff: Plaintiff is ordered to cease filing any motions, pleadings, notices, or other documents after the date of the attached Order, until the district court rules on the Defendants' #46 Motion to Dismiss. Exceptions are defined in the attached Order at Paragraphs 1.a. through 1.f. -- So Ordered by Judge Joseph N Laplante (New Hampshire) on 12/18/2013. (Duhamel, John)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

Mary Seguin
Civil No. 13-cv-095-JNL-LM

v.
Hon. Paul Suttell et al.

SUMMARY ORDER
After due consideration of the objections filed,

I herewith

approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Landya
B. McCafferty dated October 3, 2013.

The defendants' motion for

a temporary stay (document no. 34) is accordingly GRANTED, and
the court imposes, in this case, a narrowly-tailored 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 the defendants' September
5, 2013, motion to dismiss (document no. 46), 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 or other response to
the defendants' motion to dismiss (document no. 46)
while this filing restriction remains in effect, within
the time allowed by this court's prior orders;

c.

If the magistrate judge issues a report and
recommendation on the defendants' motion to dismiss
(document no. 46), 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;

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, the court may,
while this filing restriction remains in effect, 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 or motion at issue, and must attach the
document or 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
terminate when the district judge either rules on the
defendants' motion to dismiss (document no. 46), or accepts,
rejects, or modifies the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation on that motion, whichever occurs first.
The court has also given due consideration to the

plaintiff's motions to vacate this court's July 2, 2013 order
designating Magistrate Judge McCafferty to hear and determine all

2

pretrial matters, as well as motions to dismiss and for summary
judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

636(b) (1).

Finding no basis

for the plaintiff's allegations of bias on Magistrate Judge
McCafferty's part, the court DENIES those motions (documents nos.
74,

92).

SO ORDERED.

eph
lante
U ited States District Judge
Dated:
cc:

December 17, 2013

Mary Seguin (pro se)
Rebecca Tedford Partington, Esq.
Susan E. Urso, Esq.

3