Behroozi v. Behroozi
ORDER adopting 19 Report and Recommendations; Plaintiff's 18 Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Extension of Time and 23 Motion for Extension of Time to File are denied as moot- So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 5/9/2017. (Barletta, Barbara)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
C.A. No. 15-536 S
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Recommendation (“R&R”) on April 12, 2017, recommending that the Court
prejudice for want of subject matter jurisdiction and, to the extent
that Plaintiff has referred to the Rhode Island Family Court and its
judges as Defendants, for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
Plaintiff timely filed an objection to the R&R,
stating that the Magistrate Judge had “erred” and that Plaintiff
should be granted additional time to file a supplement to her
objection plus a memorandum. 1
In addition, Plaintiff filed an
representation, and that Defendants would not be prejudiced by a
On the same day, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Extension
of Time to supplement her objection.
Two days later, Plaintiff filed an amended objection,
affidavit, and motion for extension of time to correct the date on
which the R&R was filed; she had mistakenly cited March 12 as the
date of the R&R instead of April 12.
The Court has carefully reviewed the amended Complaint and Jury
Demand, the R&R, and Plaintiff’s Objections thereto.
Plaintiff’s amended Complaint is seeking to relitigate the property
settlement agreement entered in the Family Court.
For the reasons
stated in the Magistrate Judge’s R&R dated November 22, 2016, and
this Court’s Order dated March 8, 2017, this Court does not have
Moreover, as explained in the R&R currently pending before the Court,
Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the Family Court and its
judges upon which relief may be granted.
The Court therefore ACCEPTS the R&R (ECF No. 19) and adopts the
reasoning set forth therein.
Plaintiff’s amended Complaint and Jury
Demand (ECF No. 18) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s
Motions for Extension of Time (ECF Nos. 20, 23) are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Date: May 9, 2017
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?