Bogosian v. Rhode Island Airport Corporation et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 13 Emergency/Rule 60 Motion ; adopting in part 18 Report and Recommendations. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 7/10/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
RHODE ISLAND AIRPORT CORPORATION
)
(T.F. GREEN AIRPORT);
)
PETER FRAZIER; DAVID A. WOLLIN;
)
REBECCA F. BRIGGS; and
)
ADAM M. RAMOS,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
GREGG BOGOSIAN,

C.A. No. 17-016 S

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
I. Background
In late 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint in Kent County
Superior Court against Defendants, asserting a litany of counts
related to Defendants’ alleged misconduct in the litigation of
Plaintiff’s
(“RIAC”)

and

claims
some

against
RIAC

Rhode

police

Island

officers

Airport
that

Corporation

stemmed

from

an

incident at T.F. Green airport in July 2012 (C.A. No. 14-080-ML)
(“the prior litigation”).

Defendants removed the Complaint to

this Court and filed a motion to dismiss.

Magistrate Judge

Patricia A. Sullivan filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on
May 3, 2017 (ECF No. 18), recommending that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint, but without prejudice to some of the counts,

and provide him with thirty days to file an amended complaint that
cures the Complaint’s deficiencies.
denying

Plaintiff’s

“Emergency/Rule

The R&R also recommends
60”

motion

(ECF

No.

13).

Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the R&R and Defendants filed
a partial objection.
II. Standard of Review
Pursuant to Rule 72(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court reviews de novo any part of an R&R addressing
a dispositive motion to which an objection has been properly filed.
The

Court

“may

accept,

reject,

or

modify

the

recommended

disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
III. Discussion
Plaintiff’s Response to the R&R (ECF No. 20), construed as an
objection to the R&R, highlights and repeats many of the conclusory
assertions from his Complaint and argues that these statements
prove that Defendants are liable for multiple torts against him
and his family.

This Response, along with Plaintiff’s subsequent

letters to the Court (ECF Nos. 26 and 27), contain invective and
hyperbole similar to that described in the R&R from previous
filings in this case, and in orders from the prior litigation, but
do not provide any compelling arguments as to why the ten counts
asserted in his Complaint should not be dismissed.
2

For their part, Defendants articulate three objections to the
R&R: (1) that the Magistrate Judge recommended providing Plaintiff
with an opportunity to amend his complaint after concluding that
none of the claims was plausibly pleaded; (2) that the Magistrate
Judge did not recommend dismissal of each count based on the
prohibition against claim splitting; and (3) that the Magistrate
Judge recommended that some of the claims be dismissed without
prejudice because of a concern about the effect of dismissal on
pending sanctions motions in the prior litigation.
argue

that

dismissal

should

be

with

prejudice

Defendants

because

these

concerns are no longer present.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Complaint, Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s Emergency/Rule 60 motion, the R&R,
the objections to the R&R, and the letters filed by Plaintiff.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Complaint is
replete with conclusory claims. As the Magistrate Judge thoroughly
explains, most of the claims alleged are not cognizable causes of
action in state or federal law.

The Court agrees with Defendants

that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice
because final judgment has entered in the prior litigation and all
of the motions for sanctions filed in that case have been resolved.
The

Magistrate

Judge’s

concerns

about

how

a

ruling

in

this

litigation may affect the resolution of the sanctions motions filed
3

in the prior litigation are therefore no longer pertinent.
With respect to Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff should
not be provided with an opportunity to amend his complaint, the
Court is mindful that “[o]rdinarily, before dismissal for failure
to state a claim is ordered, some form of notice and an opportunity
to cure the deficiencies in the complaint must be afforded.” Brown
v. Rhode Island, 511 F. App’x 4, 5 (1st Cir. 2013) (unpublished
per

curiam

complaint

opinion)

would

be

(citation
futile,

omitted).

however,

When

because

amending

the

pleading

the
is

“patently meritless and beyond all hope of redemption,” then there
is no need to provide the litigant with an opportunity to amend.
Id. (quoting Gonzalez–Gonzalez v. United States, 257 F.3d 31, 37
(1st Cir. 2001)).

After reviewing the history and dispositions of

the prior litigation as well as the pleadings, memoranda, and
letters filed in the instant litigation, the Court concludes that
providing Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his complaint
would be futile.
completely

lacking

The bottom line is that this Complaint is
in

merit;

is

filled

with

inventive

and

hyperbole, not actionable facts; and has taxed the resources of
Defendants and this Court beyond reason.

Enough is enough.

IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the R&R (ECF No. 18) is
ACCEPTED IN PART, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is
4

GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Emergency/Rule 60 motion (ECF No. 13) is
DENIED.

The Court adopts the reasoning set forth in the R&R but

modifies the recommended disposition of Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss: the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Final judgment
will enter in favor of Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: July 10, 2017

5