Filing 96

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION denying 89 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 89 Motion to Extend Time; denying 93 Objection to Scheduling Order By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (nrg)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE ANTHONY MACHIAVELLI, Plaintiff, v. HAROLD ABBOTT, JR., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:15-cv-00340-JDL ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The United States Magistrate Judge filed his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 86) with the Court on April 4, 2017, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Machiavelli failed to object to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision within the time period set out in § 636(b)(1), and I entered an order accepting the Recommended Decision. ECF No. 87. Machiavelli subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, asking leave of the Court to file an objection to the Recommended Decision after the time allowed, claiming that he had not been provided a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s opinion. See ECF No. 89. I granted leave, and Machiavelli filed an Objection to the Recommended Decision on July 3, 2017. ECF No. 93. The Defendants filed a Response to the Plaintiff’s Objection on July 20, 2017. ECF No. 94. Machiavelli filed a Reply on August 3, 2017. ECF No. 95. Although Machiavelli’s objections were submitted in the form of a motion for reconsideration, I have conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision as if Machiavelli’s objection had been timely submitted. I 1    have considered the entire record, and have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Recommended Decision. I have carefully considered the arguments raised by Machiavelli in his objection and his reply, but conclude that they do not justify revisiting the Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusions. It is therefore ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 89) and Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 93) are DENIED. As stated in my order of April 25, 2017 (ECF No. 87), the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision is ACCEPTED, and the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. SO ORDERED. Dated this 14th day of August 2017 /s/ Jon D. Levy U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE   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?