CONDON v. BOUFFARD et al

Filing 37

ORDER adopting 17 Report and Recommended Decision for 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by RODNEY BOUFFARD, JODY L. BRETON and TROY ROSS; granting in part and denying in part 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JOHN JAY CONDON,
Plaintiff,
v.
RODNEY BOUFFARD, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:16-cv-000372-JAW

ORDER AFFIRMING THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge filed his Recommended Decision
(ECF No. 17) with the Court on February 17, 2017. The Defendants filed their
objections to the Recommended Decision on March 7, 2017.1 (ECF No. 22). On
March 27, 2017, the Plaintiff responded to the Defendants’ objections. (ECF
No. 27). I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended
Decision, together with the entire record. I have made a de novo determination
of those portions of the Recommended Decision to which the Defendants
objected, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b)(3). I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate
Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision, and determine

On March 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Points of Clarification,”
which appears on the Court’s Electronic Filing System as an “Objection to Report and
Recommended Decision.” (ECF No. 20). In the document, however, the Plaintiff makes clear
that he “has no objections to the [Magistrate Judge’s] decision” and that the Plaintiff only
“desires to clarify certain (dates and) locations he failed to be more specific about within his
previous filings with this Court.” Id. at 1.
1

that no further proceeding is necessary.
1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of
the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 17) be and hereby is
AFFIRMED.
2. It is further ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 6) be and hereby is GRANTED IN PART
and that the Plaintiff’s claim under the Eighth Amendment be
DISMISSED.
3. It is further ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is DENIED IN PART with respect to the
Plaintiff’s Due Process and Equal Protection claims under the
Fourteenth Amendment and retaliation claim under the First
Amendment.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 26th day of July, 2017

2