Robinson v. Semple et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; adopting 13 Report and Recommendations; finding as moot 15 Motion for Extension of Time. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 1/29/2016. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SCOTT SEMPLE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
SHAWN L. ROBINSON,

C.A. No. 14-554 S

ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
On September 10, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Lincoln
D. Almond issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in the abovecaptioned matter (ECF No. 13) recommending that Defendant Scott
Semple’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) be granted.
6, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the R&R.

On November
(ECF No. 16.)

For the reasons that follow, the Court hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff’s
objection and ACCEPTS the R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The R&R noted that Defendant Semple’s Motion to Dismiss was
unopposed by Plaintiff, and further found that:
[T]he Complaint fails to state a claim as a matter of
law under § 1983 as against Defendant Semple, for the
reasons articulated in his Memorandum [ECF No. 12].
Specifically, Plaintiff’s claims were not filed within
the three-year limitations period, and even if they had
been timely filed, they still fail to state a claim
against Defendant Semple because they do not allege he
had any direct involvement in the underlying facts or

circumstances, thus there is no claim for supervisory
liability under § 1983 against him.
(R&R 2, ECF No. 13.)

Plaintiff’s Objection avers that “[t]he

Defendant’s subordinates have not returned all of his needed legal
material and personal property after transferring him on September
3, 2015” and “Plaintiff can invoke the equitable tolling doctrine
because he was arbitrarily placed in segregation without all of
his legal material and personal property for several weeks after
he was transferred back to Connecticut on June 17, 2014.”
Obj. to the R&R 1-2, ECF No. 16.)

(Pl.’s

Plaintiff further contends that

he “can use the mail box rule because the Complaint was properly
prepared before the statute of limitations and in the hands of
counsel” and he “had the Complaint filed on the first business day
of the Court because the 27th of December 2014 [the last day within
the statute of limitations] fell on a weekend and he had to wait
until December 29, 2014.”

(Id. at 2-3.)

Assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff’s argument concerning the
statute of limitations has merit, that does not change the R&R’s
conclusion that “even if [Plaintiff’s claims] had been timely
filed, they still fail to state a claim against Defendant Semple.”
(R&R 2, ECF No. 13 (emphasis added).)

This Court agrees with

Magistrate Judge Almond that because Plaintiff has failed to allege
that Defendant Semple “had any direct involvement in the underlying

2

facts or circumstances,” there is thus “no claim for supervisory
liability under § 1983 against him.”

(Id.)

For the foregoing reasons, the R&R is hereby ADOPTED and
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Semple are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: January 29, 2016

3