ZAGKLARA v. SPRAGUE ENERGY CORP

Filing 108

ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE denying 70 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 97 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Maine

EIRINI ZAGKLARA,
Plaintiff
v.
SPRAGUE ENERGY CORP.,
Defendant and Third-Party
Plaintiff,
v.
LEOPARD SHIPPING, et al.,
Third-Party Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:10-cv-445-GZS

ORDER AFFIRMING THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on July 2, 2012, his Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 97).

Defendant filed its Objection to the Recommended Decision on

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 101) on August 2, 2012. Plaintiff filed her
Objection to the Recommended Decision on Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Report with
Memorandum of Law in Support of Objection (ECF Nos. 102 & 103 respectively) on August 2,
2012. Defendant filed its Response to Plaintiff’s Objection to the Recommended Decision on its
Motion to Exclude Expert Report (ECF No. 104) on August 16, 2012. Plaintiff filed her Response
to Defendant’s Objection to the Recommended Decision on its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 107) on August 21, 2012.
I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together
with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the

Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United
States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision, and determine that
no further proceeding is necessary.
1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge
is hereby AFFIRMED.
2. It is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert’s Report
(ECF No. 86) is GRANTED as to its use by the Plaintiff in opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
3. It is ORDERED that the Court RESERVES RULING on the admissibility of the
testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert, Paul Zorich, at the time of trial in this case.
4. It is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 70) is
DENIED.

/s/George Z. Singal_____________
U.S. District Judge
Dated this 24th day of August, 2012.