ADAMS v. LANDRY et al

Filing 34

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION granting 27 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; accepting 32 Report and Recommended Decision re: 27 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by SCOTT MCCAFFERY, GLEAN BROWN, PENNY BAILEY By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (CCS)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE JON ROBERT ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT R. LANDRY, et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:17-cv-00357-JAW ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION On July 9, 2018, Defendants Penny Bailey, Glean Brown, and Scott McCaffery filed a motion for partial summary judgment in this civil rights action that Jon Robert Adams filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mot. for Partial Summ. J. of Defs. (ECF No. 27). On September 6, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommended decision regarding their motion for partial summary judgment and recommended that the Court grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendants and against Jon Robert Adams on Mr. Adams’ claims for declaratory judgment and negligent supervision. Recommended Decision on Defs.’ Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No. 32). Mr. Adams has not objected to the recommended decision; even so, he is entitled to have the Court perform a de novo review of the Recommended Decision. Having performed the required de novo review, the Court AFFIRMS the Recommended Decision for the reasons set forth therein and the Court GRANTS the Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 27). The Court ORDERS that judgment shall issue in favor of Defendants Penny Bailey, Glean Brown, and Scott McCaffery on Plaintiff Jon Robert Adams’ claim for declaratory judgment and on his tort claim for negligent supervision. SO ORDERED. /s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr. JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 1st day of October, 2018

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?