Filing 14

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE mooting 6 Motion for Order; mooting 8 Motion for Contempt ; mooting 9 Motion for Oral Argument/Hearing; adopting 12 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (ccs)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE PETER P. TRUMAN, PLAINTIFF V. PAULA ARMSTRONG, ET AL., DEFENDANTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL NO. 2:17-CV-04-DBH ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On August 11, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with a copy to the plaintiff, his Order Granting Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Recommended Dismissal of Case. The time within which to file objections expired on August 25, 2017, and no objection has been filed. The Magistrate Judge notified the plaintiff that failure to object would waive his right to de novo review and appeal. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because it seeks monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief and fails to state a claim as to which relief can be granted. The plaintiff’s subsequent filings styled as motions for contempt (ECF No. 8) and for a hearing (ECF No. 9), as well as any relief requested in his filings styled as correspondence (ECF Nos. 6, 10, and 11), are MOOT. SO ORDERED. DATED THIS 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 /S/D. BROCK HORNBY D. BROCK HORNBY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?