LAFLAMME v. RUMFORD HOSPITAL

Filing 52

ORDER ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE denying 41 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 49 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (CLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
CATHERINE LaFLAMME,
Plaintiff,
v.
RUMFORD HOSPITAL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 2:13-cv-460-JDL
)
)
)
)

ORDER ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge filed his Recommended Decision (ECF No.
49) with the court on May 23, 2015, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The defendant, Rumford Hospital, filed an Objection
to the Recommended Decision on June 9, 2015. ECF No. 50. The plaintiff, Ms.
LaFlamme, filed her Response to Defendant’s Objection on June 18, 2015. ECF No.
51.
I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended
Decision, together with the entire record, and have made a de novo determination of
all matters adjudicated by it. I concur with the recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision.
Rumford Hospital contends that the “Recommended Decision mischaracterizes
a number of factual findings as undisputed when the evidence submitted by both
parties established that there are disputes about these facts.” ECF No. 50 at 3. This
argument is unavailing. Whether the facts in question are disputed or undisputed,

the court is obligated to view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party. Johnson v. University of Puerto Rico, 714 F.3d 48, 52 (1st Cir. 2013). Further,
any facts deemed admitted in connection with the summary judgment process are not
treated as admitted for purposes of trial. See L.R. 56(g) (“Facts deemed admitted
solely for purposes of summary judgment shall not be deemed admitted for purposes
other than determining whether summary judgment is appropriate.”). Accordingly,
any

mischaracterization

of

disputed

facts

as

being

undisputed

is

inconsequential. Further, I am not persuaded by, and I do not separately address,
Rumford Hospital’s remaining objections to the Recommended Decision. I determine
that no further proceeding is necessary.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate
Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Rumford Hospital’s motion for summary judgment is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Jon D. Levy_____________
U.S. District Judge
Dated this 9th day of July, 2015.