DOYLE v. TOWN OF SCARBOROUGH et al

Filing 65

ORDER affirming 59 the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge for 59 Report and Recommended Decision, mooting 54 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by MICHAEL DOYLE By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (sfw) Modified on 2/7/2017 to indicate ECF 54 was mooted. (sfw).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MICAEL DOYLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF SCARBOROUGH,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:15-cv-00227-JAW

ORDER AFFIRMING THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on January
12, 2017 his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 59). The Defendants filed
their objections to the Recommended Decision on January 13, 2017 (ECF No.
60); the Plaintiff filed his objections to the Recommended Decision on
January 20, 2017 (ECF No. 63) and his response to the Defendants’ objections
on January 27, 2017 (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 be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
2. It is further ORDERED that the Court’s prior order granting
Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is
hereby VACATED.
3. It is further ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(A), Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be and
hereby is DISMISSED without prejudice.
4. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 54) be and hereby is
MOOTED.
5. It is further ORDERED that in the event Plaintiff refiles the
claim asserted in this action, a show cause order will issue
that requires Plaintiff to show cause as to why he should not
be required to pay the filing fee in this action as a condition
to his ability to proceed in the refiled action.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 7th day of February, 2017

2