PALENCAR v. THERIAULT et al

Filing 18

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 11 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (nwd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
HILARY PALENCAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRENDA THERIAULT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
) 1:15-cv-00371-JDL
)
)
)

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge filed his Recommended Decision (ECF No.
11) with the court on October 23, 2015, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). On December 1, 2015, I issued an order
adopting the Recommended Decision and dismissing plaintiff’s Complaint, after
having noted that the time within which to file an Objection to the Recommended
Decision had expired. ECF No. 12.
On December 2, 2015, the plaintiff, Hilary Palencar, filed a letter with the
court (ECF No. 16) asserting she had timely filed an Objection to the Recommended
Decision, but that the Clerk’s Office had instructed her to submit it to a certain email
address which turned out to be an incorrect email address. ECF No. 16 at 1. Along
with her letter, Palencar also re-filed her Objection to the Recommended Decision.
ECF No. 15.
I have carefully reviewed and considered Palencar’s Objection.

Palencar

brought claims pursuant to the Federal Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 3601, et

seq. (2015), and the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 29 U.S.C.A. § 794
(2015). She objects that the Magistrate Judge reviewed her FHA claim under a
disparate impact theory, whereas she asserts that her claim was based upon a
disparate treatment theory. ECF No. 15 at 1. However, Palencar neglects to mention
that the Magistrate Judge also analyzed her FHA claim under a disparate treatment
theory as well as a failure to accommodate theory, before finding that she failed to
allege sufficient facts that would support claims of disparate impact, disparate
treatment, or failure to accommodate under the FHA. ECF No. 11 at 7-8. I agree
with this analysis and conclusion. I also agree with the Magistrate Judge that
Palencar has failed to state a claim under the ADA. ECF No. 11 at 9.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate
Judge (ECF No. 11) is hereby ADOPTED. Palencar’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is
DISMISSED without service. This order supersedes the prior order (ECF No. 12)
adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision.

SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7th day of December 2015.

/s/ JON D. LEVY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2