ERICSON v. MAGNUSSON et al

Filing 33

ORDER adopting 29 Report and Recommended Decision for 16 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 25 Motion for TRO filed by ERIC ERICSON; denying 16 Motion for Preliminary Injuncition; denying 25 Motion for TRO. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ERIC ERICSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
MARTIN MAGNUSSON, et al.,
Defendants.

2:12-cv-00178-JAW

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On June 4, 2012, Eric Ericson filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Martin Magnusson and other state of Maine officials and agents, alleging
that they have violated his religious rights, disability status, and medical and legal
needs. Compl. (ECF No. 1). On July 16, 2012, Mr. Ericson demanded that the
Court issue a preliminary injunction, Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (ECF No. 16), and on
August 6, 2012, he filed a motion for temporary restraining order (TRO). Mot. for
TRO (ECF No. 25). On August 8, 2012, the Magistrate Judge recommended that
the Court deny Mr. Ericson’s requests for TRO and preliminary injunction.
Recommended Decision Re: Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (ECF No. 16) and Mot. for TRO
(ECF No. 25) (ECF No. 29).

On August 16, 2012, Mr. Ericson objected to the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision and attached multiple exhibits. Resp. to
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 32).

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 has not, however,

considered all of the exhibits that Mr. Ericson attached to his objection to the extent
they were not made available to the Magistrate Judge.

Fireman’s Ins. Co. v.

Todesca Equip. Co., Inc., 310 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 2002); see Borden v. Sec’y of Health
and Human Serv., 836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1987) (“Parties must take before the
magistrate, ‘not only their “best shot,” but all of their shots’”) (quoting Singh v.
Superintending Sch. Comm., 593 F. Supp. 1315, 1318 (D. Me. 1984)). The Court
concurs with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth
in her Recommended Decision and determines that no further proceeding is
necessary.
1. The Court AFFIRMS the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate
Judge;
2. The Court DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (ECF No. 16); and,
3. The Court DENIES the Plaintiff’s
Restraining Order (ECF No. 25).

Motion

for

Temporary

SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 11th day of September, 2012