Kiniry v. Carroll, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Aaron Kiniry
v. 	Civil No. 17-cv-38-LM
Lt. Carroll et al.1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Aaron Kiniry’s complaint (Doc. No. 1) in this
matter, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges that
defendants, New Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”) employees,
violated his First and Eighth Amendment rights. 	After this case
was filed, the court issued an Order (Doc. No. 2) directing
Kiniry to either pay the filing fee, or file a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis by April 3, 2017. 	Kiniry has done neither.
Despite Kiniry’s failure to pay the filing fee, the court
conducted a preliminary review of the complaint, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and LR 4.3(d)(1). 	In an Order issued August
17, 2017, the court directed Kiniry to amend his complaint to
1Plaintiff has named the following employees of the New
Hampshire State Prison as defendants to this action: Lt.
Carroll, whose first name is unknown (“FNU”); FNU Totten; Cpl.
FNU Wright; Sgt. FNU Lydick; Corrections Officer (“CO”) FNU
Sake; CO FNU Young; Sgt. FNU Marshall; CO FNU Brownhe; CO FNU
O’Donahue; and Maj. FNU Fouts.
Case 1:17-cv-00038-LM Document 6 Filed 03/13/18 Page 1 of 3

name specific defendants to each of his claims, and to state,
with specificity, what acts or omissions of those defendants
violated his rights. 	Kiniry has failed to file an amended
complaint.
Kiniry has failed to take any action in regard to this
case, or to contact the court, since he first filed this matter
in February 2017. 	The court sent mail to Kiniry on February 2,
March 20, August 17, and September 11, 2017. 	None of the mail
has been returned to the court, and Kiniry has not notified the
court of any change of address. 	It appears, therefore, that
Kiniry has abandoned this case. 	Accordingly, unless Kiniry
shows cause as to why this case should not be dismissed within
fourteen days of the date of this Report and Recommendation, the
district judge should dismiss the case, without prejudice, for
failure to pay the filing fee, and for failure to prosecute.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss this case without prejudice, unless Kiniry can show
cause, within fourteen days of the date of this Report and
Recommendation, why the matter should not be dismissed. 	Any
objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed
within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed. R.
2
Case 1:17-cv-00038-LM Document 6 Filed 03/13/18 Page 2 of 3

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).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
March 13, 2018
cc: 	Aaron Kiniry, pro se
3
Case 1:17-cv-00038-LM Document 6 Filed 03/13/18 Page 3 of 3