TINKHAM et al v. PERRY et al
Filing
92
ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE granting 29 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting in part and denying in part 40 Motion to Dismiss; denying 42 Motion to Dismiss; granting 43 Motion to Dismiss; denying 81 Motion to Amend. ; adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 83 Report and Recommendations ; denying as moot 85 Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Maine
PETER TINKHAM et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
LAURA PERRY et al.,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:12-cv-00229-GZS
ORDER AFFIRMING THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On April 2, 2013,the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court her Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 83). Defendant Alan Perry filed his Objection In Part to the Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 89) on April 19, 2013. Plaintiffs filed their Objection to the Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 90) on April 22, 2013. Defendant L. Clinton Boothby filed his Response to
Plaintiff’s Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 91) on May 8, 2013. The Court has
also received and reviewed Defendants’ Responses in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend
(ECF Nos. 86 & 86).
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 proceedings on the matters addressed by the Recommended Decision is necessary.
1.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge
(ECF No. 83) is hereby AFFIRMED.
2.
It is further hereby ORDERED that Defendant Boothby’s Motions to Dismiss (ECF
Nos. 29 and 43) are GRANTED.
3.
It is further hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend (ECF No. 81) is
DENIED.
4.
It is further hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Laura
Perry and Nina Perry (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART and that all claims against Nina Perry be DISMISSSED for lack of personal
jurisdiction.
5.
It is further hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Alan Perry
(ECF No. 42) is DENIED.
6.
It is further hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery
(ECF No. 85), which is dated April 1, 2013 but was received and filed by the Court
on April 8, 2013, is DENIED as MOOT in light of the affirmation of the
Recommended Decision, which ruled in favor of Plaintiffs on the issue of diversity
jurisdiction.
7.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s February 26, 2013 Order (ECF No. 26),
this matter shall now be set for a Local Rule 56(h) Conference before this judicial
officer in Portland. Plaintiffs and counsel for the remaining Defendants shall appear
in-person for this conference.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 14th day of May, 2013.
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?