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)
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?