GLADU v. FITZPATRICK et al, No. 1:2018cv00274 - Document 16 (D. Me. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 13 . By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (MSH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
GLADU v. FITZPATRICK et al Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Maine NICHOLAS A. GLADU, Plaintiff v. JOSEPH FITZPATRICK, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:18-cv-00274-GZS ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 9) on September 19, 2018. Plaintiff filed his Objection to the Recommended Decisions (ECF No. 11) on October 4, 2018. In response to a Recommended Decision After Review of Complaint Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint with proposed supplemental pleadings in an apparent effort to address the shortcomings identified in the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 12). Upon review of the supplemental pleadings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A, the Magistrate Judge filed a Supplemental Recommended Decision (ECF No. 13) on November 9, 2018. Plaintiff filed his Objection to the Supplemental Recommended Decision (ECF No. 15) on November 23, 2018. I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision and the Supplemental Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision and the Supplemental Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision and Supplemental Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. Dockets.Justia.com 1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decisions of the Magistrate Judge are hereby AFFIRMED. 2. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED. 3. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s class action allegations are DISMISSED, and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Fitzpatrick, Thornell, Liberty, Ross, Cassese, and Burns are DISMISSED. 4. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim of the alleged denial of means by which to decontaminate from the application of pepper spray is permitted to proceed under 42 U.S.C. §1983. /s/George Z. Singal_____________ U.S. District Judge Dated this 26th day of November, 2018
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
