Rumph v. Rumph et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Stephen Rumph
v. Civil No. 16-cv-78-PB
William Rumph, Sr., et al.1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In this diversity action, the pro se plaintiff, Stephen
Rumph, brings multiple claims in this action. On October 27,
2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to join his daughter, Miranda
Rumph, as a plaintiff in this case. (Doc. No. 67). Although
filed by plaintiff, this motion was signed only by Miranda
Rumph, and the court accordingly construed it as a motion to
intervene rather than a motion to join. Dec. 29, 2016 Order at
1 (Doc. No. 70). The court concluded that the motion was
procedurally deficient, but granted Miranda Rumph leave to
supplement her motion to address those deficiencies. Id. at 3–
4. The court directed Miranda Rumph to file her supplement by
January 31, 2017, and noted that “[f]ailure to do so will result
in the undersigned recommending that the district judge deny her
motion.” Id. at 4.
While Miranda Rumph appears to have received the December
1In addition to William Rumph, Sr., defendants in this
action are Donald Kennedy, Andrew Rumph, Chryl Claflin, and the
Law Office of Donald Kennedy.
Case 1:16-cv-00078-PB Document 77 Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 3

2
29 Order (Doc. No. 70),2 she has not complied with that Order’s
requirements. Accordingly, the undersigned magistrate judge
recommends that the district judge deny the motion to intervene
(Doc. No. 67) both because Miranda Rumph did not file a
supplement as directed, and because the underlying motion (Doc.
No. 67) is deficient, as stated in the December 29 Order (Doc.
No. 70).
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. Failure to file specific written objections to the
Report and Recommendation within the specified time waives the
right to appeal the district court’s order. See Santos-Santos
v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
February 24, 2017
cc: Miranda Rumph, pro se
2The Postal Service returned the January 19, 2017 Order that
had been mailed to Miranda Rumph in Vermont, marked “unable to
forward.” Doc. No. 72 (Notice of Mail Returned). The December
29, 2016 Order (Doc. No. 70), sent to the same address, was not
similarly returned. LR 83.6(e) requires pro se parties to
provide the clerk’s office with a change of address notice, and
further states that pro se parties who fail to provide their
current address “are not entitled to notice.”
Case 1:16-cv-00078-PB Document 77 Filed 02/24/17 Page 2 of 3

3
Stephen Rumph, pro se
Ralph Suozzo, Esq.
David A. Horan, Esq.
Linda M. Smith, Esq.
William N. Smart, Esq.
Case 1:16-cv-00078-PB Document 77 Filed 02/24/17 Page 3 of 3