HARRISON v. GRANITE BAY CARE INC

Filing 41

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 29 Report and Recommendations; denying 34 Motion to Certify Questions of State Law; granting 22 Motion for Summary Judgment By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (nwd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
TORREY HARRISON,
PLAINTIFF
V.

GRANITE BAY CARE, INC.,
DEFENDANT

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 2:13-CV-123-DBH

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW
On June 30, 2014, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court,
with copies to counsel, his Recommended Decision on Motion for Summary
Judgment. The plaintiff filed an objection to the Recommended Decision on
July 21, 2014, and a Motion to Certify Questions of State Law to the Maine
Supreme Judicial Court Sitting as the Law Court on July 22, 2014.

The

defendant filed a consolidated response on July 31, 2014. Oral argument was
held on September 4, 2014.
I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision and the
motion, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of
all matters adjudicated by the Recommended Decision; and I concur with the
recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth
in the Recommended Decision, as clarified below, and determine that no further
proceeding is necessary.

I agree with the Magistrate Judge that the language of Winslow v.
Aroostook County, 736 F.3d. 23, 32 (1st Cir. 2013), controls this case, and as a
trial judge I must follow Winslow. If the Winslow language is unduly broad, that
it an argument for the plaintiff to make to the Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit. If the Winslow language potentially misconstrues the Maine statute
such that the issue should be certified to the Maine Law Court, that, too, is a
decision for the First Circuit.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate
Judge is hereby ADOPTED. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED. The plaintiff’s motion to certify questions of state law is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2