NELSON v. FORMED FIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC, No. 2:2010cv00473 - Document 78 (D. Me. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 58 Report and Recommendations. ; denying 62 Motion for Oral Argument/Hearing; granting 16 Motion to Strike By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Maine STEVEN NELSON, Plaintiff v. FORMED FIBER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:10-cv-473-GZS ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on January 13, 2012, his Recommended Decision (Docket No. 58). Plaintiff filed his Objection to the Recommended Decision (Docket No. 61) on January 26, 2012, together with a Motion for Oral Argument on his Objection to the Recommended Decision (Docket No. 62) filed on the same date. Defendant filed its Opposition to Plaintiff s Objection to the Recommended Decision and his Motion for Oral Argument (Docket No. 74) on February 13, 2012. I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's 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 I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. 1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED. 2. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant s Motion to Strike Jury Demand (Docket No. 16) is GRANTED and that Plaintiff s Jury Demand is STRICKEN from his complaint. 3. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff s Motion for Oral Argument on his Objection to the Recommended Decision (Docket No. 62) is DENIED. /s/George Z. Singal_____________ U.S. District Judge Dated this 13th day of April, 2012.

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.