GROSS v. LANDRY et al

Filing 55

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION denying 16 Motion for Order; granting 30 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 54 Report and Recommended Decision. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (CCS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
BRANDON M. GROSS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT R. LANDRY, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17-cv-00297-JAW

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION
On August 8, 2017, Brandon M. Gross, an inmate with the Maine State
Department of Corrections, filed a pro se complaint against Scott R. Landry, the
Warden at the Maine Correctional Center, numerous other employees of the Maine
Correctional Center, and Correct Care Solutions, LLC and a number of its employees,
alleging that he is hearing disabled and that the Defendants discriminated against
him due to his disability. Compl. (ECF No. 1). After some of the Defendants were
dismissed, Mr. Gross was allowed to proceed against others. Order Affirming the
Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 20).
On November 3, 2017, Mr. Gross moved for an order. Pl.’s Mot. for Order (ECF
No. 16). On February 16, 2018, Scott Landry moved for summary judgment. Mot. for
Summ. J. of Def. Scott Landry (ECF No. 30). On May 14, 2018, the Magistrate Judge
issued a recommended decision in which he recommended that the Court grant
summary judgment in favor of Warden Landry and deny Mr. Gross’ motion for order.

Recommended Decision on Def. Landry’s Mot. for Summ. J. and Pl.’s Mot. for Order
(ECF No. 54).
As the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision indicated, Mr. Gross had
fourteen days within which to file an objection to the recommended decision and the
failure to do so would constitute a waiver of the right of de novo review by the district
court. Id. at 12-13. Under the so-called mailbox rule, Mr. Gross’ objection to the
recommended decision was due on or before June 6, 2018. The Court tugged on the
deadline to make certain that Mr. Gross had ample time to file any objection. The
Court has concluded that Mr. Gross has decided not to object to the Magistrate
Judge’s recommended decision.
Even though by failing to object, Mr. Gross waived the right to de novo review,
the Court reviewed the entire record and performed a de novo review of all matters
adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision and the Court concurs
with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his
recommended decision and determines no further proceeding is necessary.
The Court ORDERS that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision (ECF
No. 54) is AFFIRMED, that Brandon M. Gross’ Motion for Order (ECF No. 16) is
DENIED, and that Scott R. Landry’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 30) is
GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that JUDGMENT shall issue in favor of Defendant
Scott R. Landry and against Plaintiff Brandon M. Gross in his Complaint against
Defendant Scott R. Landry.
SO ORDERED.

2

/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 25th of June, 2018

3