Silva v. Thornton et al

Filing 23

ORDER: For the reasons stated within, the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's 19 Report and Recommendation in its entirety and ADOPTS its recommendations and reasoning. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff's [16 ] Motion for Relief Pursuant to Rule 60(a) is DENIED. Plaintiff's 18 Motion for Rule 64 Seizure of Property is also DENIED. The Plaintiff is hereby prohibited from filing further motions or documents in this action, except a notice of appeal, without prior approval from a judge of this Court - So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 1/14/2019. (Urizandi, Nisshy)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SARAH A. THORNTON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
WAYNE A. SILVA,

C.A. No. 18-095 WES

ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
On August 21, 2018, Magistrate Judge Sullivan filed a Report
and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) (ECF No. 19) recommending that the
Court deny Plaintiff’s third Motion for Relief Pursuant to Rule
60(a)(ECF No. 16) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 64 Seizure of
Property (ECF No. 18).

The R. & R. also recommends that the Court

enter an order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing any further motions or documents in this matter, except a notice of appeal,
without first obtaining Court permission.

See R.& R. at 2. Alt-

hough not labeled as such, Plaintiff filed what might fairly be
construed as an objection to the R. & R. on August 29, 2019.

See

Pl.’s Obj. to R.&R., ECF No. 20. 1
As with earlier filings, Plaintiff’s objection is a challenge
to parse.

He appears to contend that a jury – not a judge - should

have resolved his Rule 60 motion.
is without merit.

See id. at 1.

This contention

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) (“The court may

correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or
omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part
of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with
or without notice.”) (emphasis added).

To the extent that any

understanding can be gleaned from the third paragraph of the objection, Plaintiff also suggests that the Court may “obtain jurisdiction” over the Defendants under Rule 9(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
from another tribunal.

Rule 9(e) concerns pleading a judgment

As Magistrate Judge Sullivan has observed,

“there is no judgment or potential judgment” to support his request
to seize property, see R. & R. at 1, thus Rule 9(e) is irrelevant.
Furthermore, Magistrate Judge Sullivan’s April 3, 2018 report and
recommendation, which was adopted by the Court, did not “stipulate[]” that various defendants have defaulted; it merely dePl.’s Obj. 2; see April 3, 2018

scribed Plaintiff’s allegations.

1

The title of Plaintiff’s filing, among other things, asks
the Court to “VACATE 8/21/18 ORDER.” See Pl.’s Obj. 1.
2

R. &. R. at 1, ECF No. 4.
The Court has carefully reviewed the R. & R. and agrees with
the reasoning provided by Magistrate Judge Sullivan.

A party’s

disagreement with the Court’s decision on the merits of an issue
is not a basis for correction under Rule 60(a).

See Bowen Inv.,

Inc. v. Carneiro Donuts, Inc., 490 F.3d 27, 29 (1st Cir. 2007)
(stating Rule 60(a) “does not . . . provide for the correction of
‘the deliberate choice of the district judge.’”).

Plaintiff’s

third motion under Rule 60(a) is no different in substance from
his prior motions and does not merit a different outcome. See R.
& R. at 1.

In addition, as no judgment exists supporting the

seizure of property under Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 64 Seizure of Property (ECF
No. 18) is baseless.
The Court furthermore agrees with Magistrate Judge Sullivan
that the Plaintiff has engaged in a pattern of filing frivolous
motions in this Court as well as the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts. See R. & R. at 2. The Plaintiff
shall therefore be prohibited from filing further motions or documents in this action, except a notice of appeal, without prior
approval from a judge of this Court.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ACCEPTS the R. & R. (ECF

3

No. 19) in its entirety and adopts its recommendations and reasoning.

For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge,

Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief Pursuant to Rule 60(a) (ECF No. 16)
is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 64 Seizure of Property

(ECF No. 18) is also DENIED.

The Plaintiff is hereby prohibited

from filing further motions or documents in this action, except a
notice of appeal, without prior approval from a judge of this
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: January 14, 2019

4