DORR v. WOODLANDS SENIOR LIVING OF BREWER LLC

Filing 60

ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 53 Report and Recommendations and granting in part and denying in part 30 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 31 Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (MSH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Maine

CHRISTY DORR,
Plaintiff
v.
WOODLANDS SENIOR LIVING
OF BREWER, LLC,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:15-cv-00092-GZS

ORDER AFFIRMING THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on June 27, 2016, his
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 53). Defendant filed its Objection to the Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 54) on July 11, 2016. Plaintiff filed her Partial Objection to the Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 55) on July 12, 2016. Plaintiff filed her Response to Defendant’s Objection to
the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 58) on August 8, 2016. Defendant filed its Response to
Plaintiff’s Partial Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 59) on August 9, 2016.
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 hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert
Testimony (ECF No. 31) is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART. The Court excludes Dr. Schiff-Slater’s proffered opinion testimony
regarding the expectations of an employer and the reasonableness of Defendant’s
management of Plaintiff’s situation.

34.

It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 30) is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court
enters summary judgment against the Plaintiff and for the Defendant on Plaintiff’s
accommodation-related claims under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and MHRA
(Counts II, III, V, VI, VIII, IX). Otherwise, the Court denies the Motion for
Summary Judgment.

/s/George Z. Singal_____________
U.S. District Judge
Dated this 10th day of August, 2016.