QUINN v. US PRISONER TRANSPORT INC et al

Filing 67

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT ROBINSON'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT re 39 Report and Recommendations; 21 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; 42 Appeal from Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court; 44 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (jib)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MEGHAN NICOLE QUINN,
PLAINTIFF
V.

U.S. PRISONER TRANSPORT, INC.,
ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 2:18-CV-149-DBH

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND ORDER ON
DEFENDANT ROBINSON’S MOTION TO DISMISS
THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
On January 17, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the
court, with copies to counsel, his Order on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
and Recommended Decision on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 39). On
January 31, 2019, the defendant Andrew Robinson filed an objection to the
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 41), and an appeal of the Order on Motion for
Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 42).
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 and
findings of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in the
Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary.

I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Order on Motion
for Leave to Amend Complaint.

I concur with the Magistrate Judge’s Order

because it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, and determine that
no further proceeding is necessary.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate
Judge is hereby ADOPTED.

The defendant Robinson’s motion to dismiss is

DENIED.
The defendant Robinson’s objection is OVERRULED and the Magistrate
Judge’s ruling on the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is AFFIRMED because
the Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a).
The defendant Robinson’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 44) is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the earlier Recommended
Decision of the Magistrate Judge.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2