Diaz v. Wall et al

Filing 170

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. 166 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Samuel J. Diaz. Objections to R&R due by 6/14/2022. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan on 5/31/2022. (Noel, Jeannine)

Case 1:21-cv-00241-JJM-PAS Document 170 Filed 05/31/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1255

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
SAMUEL DIAZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA A. COYNE-FAGUE, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

C.A. No. 21-241JJM

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Now pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 166) filed by
pro se Plaintiff Samuel Diaz, a prisoner at the Adult Correctional Institutions (“ACI”). In
support of the motion, Plaintiff relies on the materials considered by the Court in denying
Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Diaz v. Coyne-Fague, C.A. No. 21-241JJM, 2022 WL 1284498,
at *7 (D.R.I. Apr. 29, 2022), adopted by Text Order of May 24, 2022. However, that decision
holds only that these materials, interpreted as factual allegations incorporated in the operative
pleading, are “sufficient for Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) purposes to render plausible that these
Defendants investigated the incident and resolved it by imposing more discipline on Plaintiff and
taking no action against Defendant Belisle, thereby actively condoning conduct that amounted to
the intentional infliction of cruel and unusual punishment.” Id. (emphasis supplied). The
Court’s decision on the motion to dismiss did not make findings to resolve disputed issues of
fact, particularly with respect to the motivation (to restore order or gratuitously punish),
knowledge and intent of Officer Belisle and other Defendants. These material facts remain hotly
disputed. Further, the documents that were considered in connection with the motion to dismiss
(assuming they are later found to be authentic and accepted as true, which has not yet happened)

Case 1:21-cv-00241-JJM-PAS Document 170 Filed 05/31/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1256

might establish that it is undisputed that there was a mistake but do not preclude a fact finder
from concluding that Defendants are not liable for a constitutional deprivation.
Because Plaintiff has failed to establish that “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), I
recommend that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.1 Any objection to this
report and recommendation must be specific and must be served and filed with the Clerk of the
Court within fourteen (14) days of its receipt. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); DRI LR Cv 72(d).
Failure to file specific objections in a timely manner constitutes waiver of the right to review by
the district judge and the right to appeal the Court’s decision. See United States v. Lugo
Guerrero, 524 F.3d 5, 14 (1st Cir. 2008); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603,
605 (1st Cir. 1980).

/s/ Patricia A. Sullivan
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN
United States Magistrate Judge
May 31, 2022

1

Plaintiff’s motion also asks for a referral to alternative dispute resolution with a court-annexed mediator able to
view his evidence; Defendants’ motion to amend the pretrial scheduling order suggests that it is not opposed to
returning to mediation. As the Court has previously explained to Plaintiff, there are limits on the ability of a courtannexed mediator to use software programs that permit the sharing of documents, although a mediator may permit
materials to be sent in advance of mediation for the mediator’s review. In light of this request, I will suggest that
such a referral is appropriate.

2