Rasheed v. D'Antonio
| Decision Date | 12 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-11253-GAO |
| Parties | RASHAD RASHEED, Plaintiff, v. ANGELA D'ANTONIO, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
O'TOOLE, D.J.
The magistrate judge to whom this matter was referred has filed a report and recommendation with respect to various pending motions. No objections to the report were timely filed. The plaintiff filed a late objection which could be disregarded as untimely. (Although the plaintiff does not appear to have served the defendants with the objection, it is available to them on the electronic docket.) In light of the plaintiff's pro se and incarcerated status. I have considered the objections made. I have not. however, considered the affidavit also submitted by the defendant insofar as it seeks to expand the summary judgment record as it existed at the time of the consideration of the various motions by the magistrate judge.
After carefully reviewing the pleadings, the parties' motion papers, the magistrate judge's patient and meticulous report and recommendation, and the plaintiff's late-filed objections, I ADOPT the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge. In doing so, I overrule each of the plaintiff's objections (numbered by him 1. 2, 4. 5, 6. and 7).
The magistrate judge considered the issues presented by the motions on the basis of an extended documentary record. In addition to the plaintiff's detailed complaint, which she treatedas a sworn affidavit (see report at 6), the record included all the plaintiff's medical records and other records pertaining to him maintained by the defendants. In her summary of undisputed facts, she relied heavily, though of course not exclusively, on the plaintiff's own assertions. There is no basis for the plaintiff's objection that she failed to consider the exhibits to his complaint. (Objection # 5.)
Nor is there any merit to his argument that the magistrate judge abused her discretion in managing discovery. (Objection # 1.) Practical considerations such as expense, burden and convenience often lead to limitations on discovery. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C). The plaintiff makes no showing that his ability to oppose the defendants' motions was hampered in any substantial way by the magistrate judge's discovery rulings.
His related argument that various rulings were obtained by fraud, justifying relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), is meritless as well. (Objection # 2.) The Clarke letter and Mici affidavit that the plaintiff points to would not likely have altered the magistrate judge's suggested resolution of the bunking issue; more to the point, having now actually considered them myself, they do not alter my judgment that the magistrate judge's proposed resolution is correct.
The plaintiff is simply wrong that the magistrate judge did not fully consider his claims relative to his legal papers and mail set out in Counts I, IV and XV of his amended complaint (dkt. no. 8).(Objection # 6.) See report at 62-71.
The magistrate judge's proposed resolution of his public records claim is substantively correct. (Objection # 4.) The April 2009 medical and mental health screening assessment contained both personal medical information and criminal history information. See report at 85-87.
Finally, the denial of affirmative relief to the plaintiff (Objection # 7) is appropriate because he fails on the merits of his claims.
Accordingly, for the reason set forth in the report, the DOC defendants' motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 232) and the individual UMCH defendants' motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 244) are both GRANTED; UMCH's motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 161) is GRANTED; and plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctions (dkt. no. 173, 174, and 176), supplemental motion for protective order (dkt. no. 158), and motion for diabetes care items (dkt. no. 259) are all DENIED.
In addition, the following miscellaneous pending motions are DENIED: the plaintiff's various motions for reconsideration (dkt. nos. 171, 172, 204, and 262) and his motion for relief from judgment (dkt. no. 194).
Final judgment shall enter in favor of all DOC defendants and individual UMHC defendants on the plaintiffs' claims, and judgment of dismissal with prejudice shall enter in favor of UMHC and individual defendants Andrade, Beland, Hager, Herrick-Lynn, Johns, and Van Sciver (whose motion to dismiss was previously allowed). Because full final judgment will enter disposing of all claims against all defendants, the prior motions for entry of a separate judgment (dkt. nos. 192 and 260) are MOOT.
It is SO ORDERED.
v.
ANGELA D'ANTONIO et Defendants.
(DOCKET ENTRY ## 174 & 176); MOTION FOR MEDICAL CHRONIC CARE-
(DOCKET ENTRY # 158)
Plaintiff Rashad Rasheed ("plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, seeks compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs and attorney's fees for alleged violations of his federal constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. ("section 1983") as well as a number of other federal and state laws during his confinement at Souza-Baranowski CorrectionalCenter ("SBCC") in Shirley, Massachusetts. Pending before this court is a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant University of Massachusetts Correctional Health ("UMCH") and seven of its employees, defendants Angela D'Antonio, ("defendant D'Antonio"), Thomas Hicks ("defendant Hicks"), Bonnie Werner ("defendant Werner"), Patti Onorato ("defendant Onorato"), Jeffery Fisher ("defendant Fisher"), Marlene Dodge ("defendant Dodge") and Dyana Nickl ("defendant Nickl") (collectively: "UMCH defendants"). (Docket Entry # 244).
Also pending before this court is a motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Massachusetts Department of Corrections ("DOC") and 23 of its employees, defendants Amy Owen ("defendant Owen"), Adam Beck ("defendant Beck"), Steven Bonetti ("defendant Bonetti"), Ron Raymond ("defendant Raymond"), Anthony Mendonsa ("defendant Mendonsa"), Pamela M. O'Dell ("defendant O'Dell"), Thomas Tocci ("defendant Tocci"), Chris Hyde ("defendant Hyde"), Thomas Dickhaut ("defendant Dickhaut"), Anne M. Aucoin ("defendant Aucoin"), Richard Solomon ("defendant Solomon"), MarkO'Neil ("defendant 0'Neil"), Phillip Welsh ("defendant Welsh"), Robert Stork ("defendant Stork"), Allison Goldman-Hallett ("defendant Goldman-Hallett"), Peter St. Amand ("defendant St. Amand"), Kristie Ladoceur ("defendant Ladoceur"), Harold W. Clarke ("defendant Clarke"), Bruce Gelb ("defendant Gelb"), Robert Almeida ("defendant Almeida"), Mary Stowe("defendant Stowe"), Julie Daniele ("defendant Daniele") and John Jones ("defendant Jones") (collectively: "DOC defendants"). (Docket Entry # 232). In addition, UMCH separately moves to dismiss this action under Rule 12(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule 12(b)(1)"), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Docket Entry # 161).
Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief in a series of motions. (Docket Entry ## 158, 173, 174 & 176). These motions primarily seek to enjoin DOC defendants from housing him in a double or multi bunked cell.
On September 24, 2010, plaintiff submitted a corrected, amended complaint (Docket Entry # 8) as of right intended to resolve a photocopy error. (Docket Entry ## 8, 60 & 63); see Rule 15(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. The 15 count amended complaint alleges numerous violations of his federal and state rights while in the custody of the DOC.2 On October 20, 2010, plaintiff moved to amend the complaint based on facts "taking place after the filing of" the original complaint. (Docket Entry # 17). The additional facts concern plaintiff's refusal to move from a single bunk cell (H-2 housing unit, cell 57) to "a double bunked cell" (unit G-2, cell 20) (Docket Entry # 19, ¶ 3) and aresulting placement on awaiting action status, confiscation of personal property and issuance of a disciplinary report on September 22, 2010, all stemming from plaintiff's refusal to move to a double bunk cell. On April 8, 2011, this court allowed the motion to amend. (Docket Entry " 17).
On August 1, 2011, this court issued a Report and Recommendation recommending allowance of a motion to dismiss (Docket Entry # 99) filed by defendant MHM Services Inc. ("MHM"). (Docket Entry # 150). This court also recommended the denial of DOC defendants' motions to dismiss (Docket Entry ## 38, 53, 90, 96 & 110) and UMCH defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket Entry # 48). (Docket Entry # 150). Finally, this court recommended that plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction (Docket Entry ## 18, 61 & 64) be denied. (Docket Entry # 150). The court adopted the Report and Recommendation on September 19, 2011. (Docket Entry # 159). As explained in the Report and Recommendation, in light of plaintiff's pro se status, the proposed amended complaint (Docket Entry # 19) supplements and is in addition to the aforementioned amended complaint (Docket Entry # 8).3 The amended complaint (Docket Entry # 8) and the supplementalcomplaint (Docket Entry # 19) therefore governs these...
To continue reading
Request your trial