Widi v. Strafford County et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
David J. Widi, Jr.
v. Civil No. 13-cv-536-SM
Strafford County et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In this action, plaintiff David J. Widi, Jr., alleges that
he was subjected to the excessive use of force on November 19,
2010, in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights, and his rights under state law, while he was a federal
pretrial detainee incarcerated at the Strafford County
Department of Corrections (“SCDC”). Before the court is
plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 32), and an
addendum to that motion (doc. no. 33). Defendants object (doc.
no. 34). Widi’s summary judgment motion has been referred to
the undersigned magistrate judge for a Report and
Recommendation. See LR 72.1.
Discussion
Widi’s motion for summary judgment was filed prematurely,
as he has asserted in separate filings that he requires
additional time to obtain information necessary to adequately
Case 1:13-cv-00536-SM Document 45 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 3

2
present the arguments and claims therein. See Widi’s Mot. to
Extend Time (doc. no. 41); Widi’s Mot. to Stay (doc. no. 37).
The magistrate judge therefore recommends that Widi’s motion for
summary judgment (doc. no. 32) be denied as premature, without
prejudice to Widi refiling or renewing his request for summary
judgment prior to the dispositive motion deadline to be
rescheduled in this action, pursuant to the Order issued on this
date.
To avoid imposing any unnecessary administrative burden on
the parties, the district judge should allow both parties the
option of renewing the motion and the addendum thereto (doc.
nos. 32 and 33), and similarly renewing the objection (doc. no.
34), by filing a notice to that effect, in lieu of refiling the
same documents. That abbreviated briefing procedure would not
be intended to limit the parties’ ability to file a timely, new
or revised summary judgment motion or objection, if they so
choose.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the magistrate judge recommends:
1. That the district judge deny plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment (doc. no. 32) without prejudice to
renewal or refiling on or before the new dispositive motion
deadline to be set by the court pursuant to the Order
issued on this date; and
2. That the district judge further direct that
Case 1:13-cv-00536-SM Document 45 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 3

3
plaintiff be permitted, but not required, to renew his
summary judgment motion (doc. no. 32), and the addendum
thereto (doc. no. 33), simply by filing a notice to that
effect on or before the new dispositive motion deadline,
and that defendants may renew their objection (doc. no. 34)
in the same manner, if they so choose.
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). Failure to file objections within the
specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s
order. See United States v. De Jesús-Viera, 655 F.3d 52, 57
(1st Cir. 2011).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
June 18, 2015
cc: David J. Widi, Jr., pro se
Corey M. Belobrow, Esq.
Case 1:13-cv-00536-SM Document 45 Filed 06/18/15 Page 3 of 3