Thompson et al v. Miles et al

Filing 55

ORDER AFFIRMING 46 THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE granting 30 Motion for Summary Judgment; By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (dfr)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE MICHAEL THOMPSON Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL MILES AND NANCY CLOUD, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 1:10-cv-00234-NT ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on December 30, 2011 her Recommended Decision and Order on Motion to Strike (Docket No. 46). The Defendants filed their Objection to the Recommended Decision (Docket No. 50) on January 13, 2012. The Plaintiff filed his Objection to the Recommended Decision (Docket No. 51) on January 20, 2012. The Defendants filed their Response to the Plaintiff’s objections (Docket No. 52) on February 3, 2012. I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is 1 necessary. 1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED. 2. It is further ORDERED that the Summary Judgment be GRANTED to the Defendants on the remaining claims against them -- Count I (breach of contract), Count III (fraud), Count IV (negligent misrepresentation) and Count VI (unfair trade practice). 3. It is further ORDERED that the Defendant’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s order denying Defendant’s Motion to Strike is OVERRULED. SO ORDERED. /s/ Nancy Torresen UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 30th day of March, 2012 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?