Prevost v. NH State Department Correctional Services et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Todd Prevost
v. Civil No. 20-cv-261-SE
Cheshire County Correctional
Facility et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Todd Prevost filed the initial complaint (Doc.
No. 1) in this case, asserting claims alleging violations of his
federal constitutional rights during his pretrial detention at
the Cheshire County Department of Corrections. The matter
having come before the undersigned Magistrate Judge for
preliminary review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and LR
4.3(d)(1), the Court directed Mr. Prevost to amend his complaint
to assert facts to demonstrate that he could state a claim upon
which relief might be granted,\ on or before May 3, 2021. See
Apr. 5, 2021 Order (Doc. No. 13).
Mr. Prevost filed a timely motion (Doc. No. 14) to extend
that deadline which the Court granted, extending the deadline to
June 4, 2021. When Mr. Prevost failed to file an amended
complaint or motion to extend the June 4 deadline, the Court
issued the following Order:
Case 1:20-cv-00261-SE Document 17 Filed 06/08/22 Page 1 of 4

2
Plaintiff Todd Prevost was directed to file an amended
complaint in this case by June 4, 2021. See May 5,
2021 Order (extending deadline from May 3, 2021). Mr.
Prevost has not yet filed an amended complaint.
Because Mr. Prevost is representing himself in this
case, in an abundance of caution, the court sua sponte
further extends the deadline for filing an amended
complaint until July 26, 2021. No further extensions
will be granted without Mr. Prevost demonstrating good
cause for such an extension.
June 28, 2021 Order. Mr. Prevost did not file an amended
complaint.
On January 10, 2022, the Court received a letter from Mr.
Prevost inquiring as to whether his “case had been dismissed
with or without prejudice.” Doc. No. 15. Mr. Prevost indicated
that if his case had been dismissed, he wanted to refile it.
See id. In response, the Court issued an Order (Doc. No. 16) on
January 12, 2022, advising Mr. Prevost that this case was “still
open,” but that, “[t]o maintain this case . . . Mr. Prevost must
file an amended complaint, as set forth in the Court’s April 5,
2021 Order,” by March 14, 2022. Jan. 12, 2022 Order (Doc. No.
16, at 2). The Court further instructed Mr. Prevost that, if he
was unable to file his amended complaint by that date, he had to
move to extend that deadline “on or before March 14, 2022,
demonstrating good cause for the requested extension.” Id. The
Court sent Mr. Prevost, along with its January 12 Order, a copy
of his complaint (Doc. No. 1), the April 5, 2021 Order (Doc. No.
Case 1:20-cv-00261-SE Document 17 Filed 06/08/22 Page 2 of 4

3
13), and the docket sheet of this case. Later that month, Mr.
Prevost was notified that this case had been reassigned to Judge
Samantha Elliott. See Jan. 21, 2022 Order.
Neither of the orders sent to Mr. Prevost at the last
address he provided to the court has been returned to the court
undelivered.1 Mr. Prevost has not filed an amended complaint or
a motion to extend his time to file an amended complaint. He
last communicated with the Court on January 10, 2022, almost
five months ago. It appears that Mr. Prevost has abandoned this
case. Accordingly, the District Judge should dismiss this
matter, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the District Judge should
dismiss this case, in its entirety, without prejudice.
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.
1 On July 28, 2020, Mr. Prevost notified the court that he
had been released from prison, and provided the court with an
address in Swanzey, New Hampshire, and the court has used that
address to send mail to Mr. Prevost since that date. See July
28, 2020, Pl.’s Notice of Change of Address (Doc. No. 11).
Case 1:20-cv-00261-SE Document 17 Filed 06/08/22 Page 3 of 4

4
Failure to file any objection 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). Only those issues raised by the objection(s) to this
Report and Recommendation “‘are subject to review in the
district court and those not preserved by such objection are
precluded on appeal.’” Id. (citations omitted).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
June 8, 2022
cc: Todd Prevost, pro se
Case 1:20-cv-00261-SE Document 17 Filed 06/08/22 Page 4 of 4