Guerra v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections
Filing
19
ORDER granting 13 Motion for Sanctions; adopting 16 Report and Recommendations and dismissing case without prejudice. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 9/23/2016. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT
)
OF CORRECTIONS,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
FERNANDO GUERRA,
C.A. No. 15-445 S PAS
ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
On July 6, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Patricia A.
Sullivan issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in this pro
se civil rights case.
(ECF No. 16.)
Magistrate Judge Sullivan
recommended that this Court grant the Rhode Island Department of
Corrections’ (“RIDOC”) Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 13) and
dismiss this action because of Plaintiff’s continued failure to
respond
orders.
to
discovery
Plaintiff
requests
did
not
and
object
abide
to
the
by
numerous
R&R.
The
court
RIDOC
objected to Magistrate Judge Sullivan’s recommendation that the
case be dismissed without prejudice.
(ECF No. 17.)
According
to the RIDOC, Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his case, even
after receiving multiple warnings that failing to do so would
result in dismissal, warrants dismissal with prejudice.
1
While
the
RIDOC’s
objection
is
well
taken,
the
Court
nonetheless agrees on balance with Magistrate Judge Sullivan’s
recommendation; dismissal is a harsh sanction in and of itself,
and in deference to Plaintiff’s pro se status, dismissal without
prejudice is sanction enough in this instance.
Consequently,
the Court OVERRULES the objection and ACCEPTS the R&R pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________
William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: September 23, 2016
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?