DEPAOLO v. OCEAN PROPERTIES LTD et al
Filing
67
ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE - adopting 64 Report and Recommendations for 55 Motion for Summary Judgment. By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (mnw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
CARY DEPAOLO,
Plaintiff,
v.
GHM PORTLAND MAR, LLC,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
) Docket no. 2:16-cv-468-NT
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On August 10, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the
court, with copies to the parties, his Recommended Decision on the Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 64). The Defendant filed an
objection to the Recommended Decision on August 24, 2018. (ECF No. 65). The
Plaintiff responded on September 7, 2018. (ECF No. 66). 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.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the
Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
It is hereby
ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
55) is GRANTED in part, as to the Plaintiff’s claims in Count I of disability
discrimination based on a theory of failure to accommodate and his claim in
Count II of FMLA retaliation, and in all other respects the motion is DENIED.
Remaining for trial are the Plaintiff’s claims in Count I for retaliation,
disability discrimination based on a theory of disparate treatment, and
creation of a disability-based hostile work environment, and in Count II of
FMLA interference.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Nancy Torresen_______________
United States Chief District Judge
Dated this 28th day of September, 2018.
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?