GLADU v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS et al

Filing 236

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISIONS AND RULINGS ON ORDERS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: 216 Report and Recommendations; 161 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; 228 Objection to Scheduling Order; 230 Objection; 229 Objection; 158 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; 226 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; 223 Objection; 157 Motion to Amend; 217 Report and Recommendations By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (jib)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
NICHOLAS A. GLADU,

)
)
PLAINTIFF
)
)
V.
)
)
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, ET AL., )
)
DEFENDANTS
)

CIVIL NO. 2:15-CV-384-DBH

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISIONS AND
RULINGS ON ORDERS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On November 2, 2016, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the
court, with copies to the parties, his Recommended Decision on Plaintiff’s Motion
for Leave to Amend Complaint and Motion for Leave to Refile Malpractice Claim
(ECF No. 216).

On November 21, the plaintiff filed an objection to the

Recommended Decision (ECF No. 228) only with respect to the ruling on the
malpractice claim, as well as a motion to withdraw his motion to amend his
complaint to add the malpractice claim (ECF No. 226). The plaintiff’s motion to
withdraw the motion to amend complaint is GRANTED. The plaintiff’s objection
to the Recommended Decision is MOOT.

The Recommended Decision of the

Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED on every matter except for the ruling on the
malpractice claim, and that portion of the ruling is VACATED.
On November 3, 2016, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the
court, with copies to the parties, his Recommended Decision on Plaintiff’s

[Renewed] Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 217). The plaintiff filed
an objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 229) on November 21, 2016.
I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, 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, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate
Judge is hereby ADOPTED.

The plaintiff’s renewed motion for preliminary

injunction is DENIED.
The plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 223) to the Magistrate Judge’s Order on
Plaintiff’s Motion for Physical and Mental Examination (ECF No. 218) is
OVERRULED.

The Magistrate Judge’s Order is neither clearly erroneous nor

contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
The plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 230) to the Magistrate Judge’s Order on
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 219) is OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge’s
Order stated that if the plaintiff exhausted all of the avenues listed in the Order,
he could then file a motion to compel. The record does not demonstrate that he
has done so.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2