MACHIAVELLI v. ABBOTT JR et al

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)

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