United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
WAYNE A. SILVA, Plaintiff,
ROBERT M. FARRELL, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
January 10, 2019, Plaintiff made a filing that the
Clerk's office captioned as a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's text orders of December
31, 2018, in which it denied as moot Plaintiff's motion
to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the case.
The motion has been referred to me for determination. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
on Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d),  the motion appears to argue (1) that the
Court ignored Plaintiff's Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e)
motion for a more definite statement “of
report and recommendation” on which the text orders
were based, to bring it into compliance with the requirement
that party allegations must be concise and direct pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d); (2) that the text orders are not signed as
required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and should be stricken; and (3)
that Plaintiff's motion for in forma pauperis
status should be granted. No new facts are presented in
support of the motion for reconsideration.
request seeking reconsideration, Plaintiff's new motion
must overcome the well-established principle that
“[t]he granting of a motion for reconsideration is
‘an extraordinary remedy which should be used
sparingly.'” Bowling v. Hasbro, Inc., C.A.
No. 05-229S, 2008 WL 169693, at *1 (D.R.I. Jan. 16, 2008)
(quoting Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 30
(1st Cir. 2006)). “Unless the court has misapprehended
some material fact or point of law, such a motion is normally
not a promising vehicle for revisiting a party's case and
rearguing theories previously advanced and rejected.”
Palmer, 465 F.3d at 30. To succeed on a motion for
reconsideration, a movant “must demonstrate either that
newly discovered evidence (not previously available) has come
to light or that the rendering court committed a manifest
error of law.” Id. Having carefully considered
Plaintiff's arguments based on Rules 8(d), 11 and 12(e),
I find that all are inapt in that those Rules are addressed
to the filings of parties, not to decisions of the Court.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d), 11, 12(e). Because Plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration identifies no new evidence and no
manifest error of law, by text order entered today, the Court
has denied it for the reasons stated above.
the motion for reconsideration is a matter referred for
determination, which has been accomplished by text order, I
am issuing this report and recommendation pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) to recommend that the Court now
enter an injunction. Specifically, based on the frivolous
nature of Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, and
based on Plaintiff's pattern of filing frivolous
post-judgment motions in Silva v. Thornton, C.A. No.
18-95WES, as well as in a related Massachusetts case,
recommend that, except for a notice of appeal and a single
motion for relief from judgment or order in compliance with
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60, the Court enter an injunction barring
Plaintiff from filing any further motions or other documents
in this matter without first obtaining permission from a
judge of this Court.
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 after its service on the objecting
party. 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).
 As with all of Plaintiff's
filings, the Court has read this new “motion”
with the leniency appropriate for any pro se filer.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
 Rule 8 sets out the general rules of
pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. In subpart d, the Rule addresses
the obligation of a party to make allegations that are
simple, concise and direct, while permitting alternative
statements and inconsistent claims or defenses. Fed.R.Civ.P.
 No such motion appears in the record.
Mindful of the obligation to read Plaintiff's filings
with leniency, the Court interprets this as an argument on
reconsideration pursuant to Rules 8(d) and 12(e) that the
Court should have ordered that the report and recommendation
be restated to be more concise and direct. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d),
 The details of Plaintiff's
post-judgment filing conduct are laid out in ECF No. 3 at 2-3
(summarizing post-judgment filings in cases in Massachusetts
and Rhode Island).
 I recommended essentially the same
injunction in Silva v. Thornton, which the Court
issued on January 14, 2019. C.A. No. 18-95WES ECF No. 23. The
only difference in this case is that Plaintiff need not