GOGUEN v. GILBLAIR et al

Filing 75

ORDER adopting 65 Report and Recommended Decision for 44 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Motion for Summary Judgment filed by JESSICA ALMEIDA, COREY SWOOPE, EDDIE JACQUES, MIKE RIZZO, THERESA BROWN, DARLENA BUGBEE, CRAFTS, OFFICER , KEITH PLOURD, DAVID ALLEN, JENNIFER GILBLAIR, JULIE HAYDEN, SHAWN MAGUIRE, SEAN MAGUIRE, JAMES FRENCH, PEGGY KELLY, CRAIG MEUNIER, JEFFERY JACQUES and 55 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by ROBERT GOGUEN; granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 55 Motion for Summary Judgment. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ROBERT GOGUEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JENNIFER GILBLAIR, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-00048-JAW

ORDER AFFIRMING THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on June 20,
2013 her Recommended Decision (ECF No. 65). The Defendants filed their
objections to the Recommended Decision on July 12, 2013 (ECF No. 70) and
their amended partial objections on July 17, 2013 (ECF No. 73) and the
Plaintiff filed his Response to those Objections on August 5, 2013 (ECF No.
74). 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
necessary.

1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the
Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED.
2. It is further ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings and for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44) be and
hereby is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The
Plaintiff’s due process claim of prehearing punishment imposed on
a pretrial detainee, First Amendment retaliation claim, and
conspiracy claim will remain in the case; all other claims are
dismissed with prejudice.
3. It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 55) be and hereby is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 25th day of September, 2013

2