Source: http://ri.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180226_0000034.DRI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:55:56+00:00

Document:
INVESTIGATOR CABRAL, et al., Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 39) in this case, recommending the Court grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 29).
After careful review of the papers related to Defendants' Motion, and of the R&R, and having heard no objections, the Court ACCEPTS the R&R and adopts its recommendation and reasoning. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 29) is therefore GRANTED.
Pending before the Court pursuant to (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)) is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. (ECF Doc. No. 29). Pro se Plaintiff Juan Rodriguez, a prisoner at the Adult Correctional Institutions ("ACI"), has brought claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Ashbel T. Wall, Matthew Kettle, Jeffrey Aceto, Lieutenant Burt, Lieutenant Amaral and Investigator Cabral, all of whom are sued in their individual capacities and in their official capacities with the Rhode Island Department of Corrections ("Defendants"). Defendants move the Court to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, I recommend that the Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.
Plaintiff is an inmate at the ACI in Cranston, Rhode Island. His pro se First Amended Complaint, filed on August 11, 2017, alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. §1983, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In brief, Plaintiff was charged with several disciplinary infractions, received hearings and was found guilty and sentenced to periods in segregation. His claims stem from the proceedings and resulting punishment.
Following Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff filed several Motions seeking additional time to file an Objection as well as paper copies of certain cases. (ECF Doc. Nos. 30, 33, 34, 36). On January 19, 2018, the Court Ordered Defendants to provide Plaintiff with copies of the requested cases and Ordered Plaintiff to file his response to the Motion to Dismiss on or before February 9, 2018. Defendants promptly filed a Declaration that they complied with the Court's Order. (ECF Doc. No. 38). To date, Plaintiff has not filed an Objection to the Motion to Dismiss or otherwise responded to the Court's Order. Thus, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is unopposed and could be granted on that basis. However, out of deference to Plaintiffs pro se status, the Court will also substantively address the arguments for dismissal made by Defendants.
Under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Neeron-Gaztambide v. Hernandez-Torres, 35 F.3d 25, 27 (1st Cir. 1994); taking all well-pleaded allegations as true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences, see Arruda v. Sears. Roebuck & Co., 310 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2002); Carreiro v. Rhodes Gill & Co., 68 F.3d 1443, 1446 (1st Cir. 1995). If under any theory the allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action in accordance with the law, the motion to dismiss must be denied. Vartanian v. Monsanto Co., 14 F.3d 697, 700 (1st Cir. 1994).

References: § 636
 § 1983
 §1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.