MCCUE v. CITY OF BANGOR MAINE et al

Filing 112

ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 102 Report and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part 83 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 105 Motion for Oral Argument/Hearing By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (MSH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Maine

MICHAEL McCUE,
Plaintiff
v.
CITY OF BANGOR, ET AL
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:14-cv-00098-GZS

ORDER AFFIRMING THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on September 22, 2015, his
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 102). Plaintiff filed his Limited Objection to the
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 103) on October 9, 2015. Defendants filed their Partial
Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 104) on October 9, 2015. Plaintiff filed his
Response to Defendants’ Partial Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 108) on
October 21, 2015. Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff’s Limited Objection to the
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 110) on October 22, 2015.
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 his 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 ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED
IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
a. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant City of Bangor on the entirety of
Plaintiff’s 1983 civil rights claim;
b. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s civil rights claim
that is based on (i) Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendants lacked probable cause
to seize Plaintiff, and (ii) Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendants acted with
deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff’s need for medical care;
c. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s civil rights excessive
force claim except as to his claim that the individual Defendants used
excessive force after Plaintiff ceased resisting their efforts to apprehend and
detain him;
d. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants on the state law assault claim
based on qualified immunity determination and corresponding immunity
determination under the Maine Tort Claims Act except as to Plaintiff’s assault
claim based on Defendants’ alleged use of excessive force after Plaintiff
ceased resisting Defendants’ efforts to apprehend and detain him. To the
extent that Defendants’ Motion is construed to request summary judgment on
any of the other state law tort claims, the motion is DENIED.

3.
It is ORDERED that Defendants’ Joint Request for Oral Arguments (ECF No.
105) is DENIED.

/s/George Z. Singal_____________
U.S. District Judge
Dated this 6th day of November, 2015.