INMAN v. RIEBE et al

Filing 66

ORDER adopting 50 Report and Recommended Decision for 40 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by FRANK INMAN; denying 40 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE FRANK INMAN, Plaintiff, v. WENDY RIEBE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:15-cv-00080-JAW ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On November 18, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 50). The Plaintiff filed his objection to the Recommended Decision on December 24, 2015 (ECF No. 58) and the Defendants filed their response to the Plaintiff’s objection on January 11, 2016 (ECF No. 64). 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 (ECF No. 50) is hereby AFFIRMED. 2. It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 40) be and hereby is DENIED. SO ORDERED. /s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr. JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 12th day of January, 2016 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?