PELLETIER v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

Filing 23

ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE - denying 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, denying 14 Motion for Immediate Relief, accepting 19 Report and Recommendations, accepting 20 Report and Recommended Decision, denying as moot 21 Motion for Excusal of Forma Pauperis in Filing Fee and denying as moot 22 to Correspond with US Courts. By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (mnd)

Case 1:22-cv-00260-JDL Document 23 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 3

PageID #: 88

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ROLAND PELLETIER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,
Defendants.

1:22-cv-00260-JDL

ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISIONS OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Roland Pelletier brought this action in August 2022 against the Maine
Department of Corrections and several other Defendants (ECF No. 1).

In his

Complaint and his subsequent filings (ECF Nos. 6, 12, 18), Pelletier asserts, among
other things, that his constitutional rights were violated by the Defendants’
deliberate indifference to his medical needs, the Defendants’ use of excessive force,
and the Defendants’ failure to take precautions against COVID-19 infection. Pelletier
also filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3) to prevent what he
alleges is the ongoing violation of his constitutional rights. 1 Finally, Pelletier filed a
motion requesting “release” from confinement (ECF No. 14). 2

Pelletier also requested a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 3), which I denied on August 26,
2022 (ECF No. 4).
1

This motion also requested the appointment of counsel, but Magistrate Judge Nivison denied that
request on September 19, 2022 (ECF No. 16).
2

1

Case 1:22-cv-00260-JDL Document 23 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 3

PageID #: 89

United States Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison filed his Recommended
Decisions on the Complaint and the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction with the
Court on September 29, 2022 (ECF Nos. 19, 20), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2022) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The Magistrate Judge

recommends that (1) all of Pelletier’s claims except for his claim of excessive force be
dismissed for failure to state a claim and (2) all of Pelletier’s claims, including the
claim for excessive force, should be dismissed if Pelletier did not, within the 14-day
objection period, pay the required filing fee or file a complete application to proceed
without the payment of fees. 3 The Magistrate Judge further recommends that the
Court deny Pelletier’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and his request for
immediate release.
The time within which to file objections has expired, and no objections have
been timely filed. The Magistrate Judge provided notice that a party’s failure to
object would waive the right to de novo review and appeal. Additionally, Pelletier did
not pay the filing fee or file a complete application to proceed without the payment of
fees during the 14-day objection period.
I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decisions, together with the
entire record, and I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by

The Magistrate Judge had previously denied (ECF No. 5) Pelletier’s Motion to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees and Costs (ECF No. 2) because the application was incomplete. The Order denying
Pelletier’s motion noted, “If Plaintiff intends to proceed with this matter, Plaintiff shall file a completed
application with all the required information or pay the filing fee by September 9, 2022. If Plaintiff
fails to file a completed application and otherwise comply with this order, the Court could dismiss the
action.” ECF No. 5 at 2. In his Recommended Decision, the Magistrate Judge again extended the time
by which Pelletier could pay the filing fee or file a completed application to include the 14-day objection
period.
3

2

Case 1:22-cv-00260-JDL Document 23 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 3

PageID #: 90

the Magistrate Judge. I concur with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge
for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decisions and determine that no further
proceeding is necessary.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decisions (ECF Nos. 19, 20)
of the Magistrate Judge are hereby ACCEPTED. Pelletier’s Complaint (ECF No. 1)
is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to his claim of excessive force and is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in all other respects. Pelletier’s Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3) is DENIED. Pelletier’s Motion for Release,
Protection, and Immediate Relief (ECF No. 14) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Dated this 17th day of November, 2022.
/s/ Jon D. Levy
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3