Liberty et al v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
CHARLENE LIBERTY, et al., 	:
Plaintiffs, 	:
:
v. 	: 	C.A. No. 19-573JJM
:
RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT 	:
OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 	:
Defendants. 	:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
On May 16, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Suggestion of Death on behalf of named Plaintiff
Charlene Liberty. ECF No. 75. As a result, the Court subsequently ordered the parties to “show
cause . . . why the Court should not terminate [Ms. Liberty] from this action and dismiss her
claims as moot.” Text Order of May 19, 2022. In response to the show cause order Plaintiffs
filed a twenty-two-page memorandum with two exhibits. ECF No. 79. Defendants subsequently
moved to strike Plaintiffs’ response as non-responsive. ECF No. 82.
Based on Plaintiffs’ “response” to the Court’s show cause order, which does not directly
respond to the question in the show cause order, the Court adopts as correct the legal proposition
stated in the show cause order and finds that the claims of Plaintiff Charlene Liberty are mooted
by her death. See Text Order of May 19, 2022. The Court recommends that the Clerk be
directed to terminate Plaintiff Charlene Liberty as a party in this case. The Court has not
considered any of the extraneous matters addressed in Plaintiffs’ response to the show cause
order. In particular, this report and recommendation does not address one way or the other the
scope of the claims of the remaining Plaintiffs, including the scope of the class that the Court
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 84 Filed 06/08/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
might hereafter certify. The Court further recommends that Defendants’ motion to strike be
denied as moot.
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
June 8, 2022
Case 1:19-cv-00573-JJM-PAS Document 84 Filed 06/08/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>