Forcier v. Binette et al
Filing
15
ORDER granting 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; adopting 10 Report and Recommendations. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 3/13/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
MELISSA FORCIER,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ARMAND E. BINETTE, in his official )
capacity as Senior Housing
)
Inspector of the Minimum Housing
)
Division of the City of Woonsocket,)
Rhode Island, and the CITY OF
)
WOONSOCKET, RHODE ISLAND,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
C.A. No. 16-121 S
ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No.
6.) The Complaint alleges that Defendants deprived Plaintiff of
a property interest in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution (Count I) as well
as several state laws (Counts 2-5). (See Compl. 13-15, ECF No.
1.)
This
Sullivan,
(Report
matter
who
and
specifically,
Plaintiff’s
was
referred
recommends
that
to
Defendants’
Recommendation
(“R
Magistrate
Judge
claims
arising
Magistrate
under
&
R”),
motion
ECF
Sullivan
the
Judge
Fifth
No.
be
Patricia
granted.
10.)
recommends
and
More
that
Fourteenth
Amendments be dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiff has not
alleged a deprivation of a constitutionally protected property
interest. With the federal claims dismissed, Magistrate Judge
Sullivan further recommends that Plaintiff’s state law claims be
dismissed without prejudice. (See id. at 22 n.13.) Plaintiff
filed an Objection, waiving certain previously-made arguments 1 ,
but
continuing
to
assert
that
Plaintiff
was
deprived
of
a
constitutionally protected property interest. (See Obj. to R & R
3, ECF No. 13-1.)
The substance of Plaintiff’s arguments in her Objection to
the
Report
and
Recommendation
were
previously
made
in
her
Objection to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8-1) and are
addressed in Magistrate Sullivan’s Report and
Recommendation.
After careful consideration of Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court
ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation’s finding that Plaintiff
fails to assert a constitutionally protected property interest
in her Complaint. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is
therefore GRANTED. Plaintiff’s federal claims under the Fifth
and
Fourteenth
Amendments
(Count
1)
are
DISMISSED
WITH
PREJUDICE, and Plaintiff’s state law claims (Counts 2-5) are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Judgment shall enter accordingly.
1
Plaintiff withdrew her substantive due process arguments
as well as her claims against Defendant Binette. (See Obj. to R
& R 3, ECF No. 13-1.)
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: March 13, 2017
3
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?