DUPONT v. BIDDEFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT ET AL

Filing 21

ORDER adopting 15 Report and Recommended Decision for 8 Motion to Dismiss, filed by BIDDEFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF BIDDEFORD, BIDDEFORD POLICE COMMISSIONER; granting 8 Motion to Dismiss. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ALINE C. DUPONT,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BIDDEFORD, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-00209-JAW

ORDER AFFIRMING THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Aline C. Dupont filed an amended complaint against the Biddeford
Police Department, the Biddeford Police Commissioner, and the City of Biddeford
(collectively Biddeford Defendants) on May 25, 2011, alleging that the defendants
had violated her rights under both state and federal law. Am. Compl. (Docket # 5).
On July 26, 2011, the Biddeford Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. Defs.’ Motion to Dismiss Am. Compl. (Docket # 8). Ms. Dupont filed an
objection to the motion on September 16, 2011, Pl.’s Obj. to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss
(Docket # 13), and the Biddeford Defendants replied on September 30, 2011, Defs.’
Reply to Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (Docket # 14).
The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court a Recommended
Decision on October 24, 2011. Rec. Dec. on Mot. to Dismiss Am. Compl. (Docket #
15) (RecDec).

On November 8, 2011, Ms. Dupont filed her objection to the

Magistrate’s recommended decision. Obj. to Rec. Dec. and Mot. to Extend and to

Recuse (Docket # 16).

The Biddeford Defendants filed their response to her

objection on November 23, 2011. Resp. to Pl.’s Obj. to Rec. Dec. and Mot. to Extend
and to Recuse (Docket # 18).
The

Court

has

reviewed

and

considered

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Recommended Decision, together with the entire record, and has made a de novo
determination of all matters adjudicated therein.

The Court concurs with the

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in the
Recommended Decision.1
1.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the
Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED.

2.

The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint
(Docket # 8) is GRANTED.

3.

The Plaintiff’s federal constitutional
DISMISSED with prejudice.

4.

The Plaintiff’s state law claims are hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice.

claims

are

hereby

The Court corrects a clerical error in the Recommended Decision. On page 8 in the last sentence of
the first full paragraph, the following sentence appears:
1

Additionally, because Defendants were not Dupont’s employer, the fact that the
disclosure caused Dupont’s termination does expose Defendants to a procedural due
process claim.
Rec. Dec. at 8. It is apparent from the context that the Magistrate Judge intended to say that the
termination did not expose the Defendants to a procedural due process claim. Accordingly, the Court
affirms the Recommended Decision, except it replaces the sentence quoted above with the following:
Additionally, because Defendants were not Dupont’s employer, the fact that the
disclosure caused Dupont’s termination does not expose Defendants to a procedural
due process claim.

2

SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 10th day of February, 2012

3