BROWN v. FERRARA et al, No. 2:2010cv00523 - Document 124 (D. Me. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 82 Report and Recommended Decision granting in part and denying in part 33 Motion to Dismiss By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Maine CRAIG A. BROWN, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL FERRARA, et al., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:10-cv-523-GZS ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on April 28, 2011, her Recommended Decision (Docket No. 82). Plaintiff filed his Objection to the Recommended Decision (Docket No. 106) on May 16, 2011. Defendants Town of Camden, Roberta Smith, Parker Laite, Sr., Parker Laite, Jr., Phil Roberts, Jeff Nims, Randy Gagne, Curt Andrick and Jason Hall filed their Objection to Plaintiff s Objection to the Recommended Decision (Docket No. 114) on May 19, 2011. The Court notes the above-referenced Objection (Docket No. 114) asserts that the Plaintiff s Objection to the Recommended Decision was not timely filed. Under the Court s current Time Computation Guidelines effective December 1, 2009, an objection to a Report and Recommended Decision shall be filed within 14 days of the filing of a Report and Recommended Decision, plus an additional three (3) days for mailing, for a total of seventeen (17) days. Therefore, the Court FINDS that Plaintiff s Objection to the Recommended Decision (Docket No. 106) was timely filed on May 16, 2011. 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 her 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 Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 33) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. All federal claims against Defendants Town of Camden and Roberta Smith are DISMISSED with prejudice based upon res judicata principles, and all supplemental state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice under 18 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c)(4). b. All claims, both federal and state against Defendants Andrick, Gagne, Laite, Jr. and Laite, Sr. are DISMISSED because all alleged conduct relating to them occurred outside of the six-year statute of limitations and because the conspiracy allegations concerning more recent conduct are implausible. c. All claims, both federal and state, against Defendants Nims and Roberts that relate to conduct occurring in 2001-2002 and all federal RICO and § 1985 conspiracy theories are DISMISSED but the Motion is DENIED IN PART as to all remaining federal constitutional claims premised on individual liability and related state law claims. d. All federal RICO and § 1985 conspiracy claims against Defendant Hall are DISMISSED but the Motion is DENIED IN PART as to all remaining federal constitutional claims premised on individual liability and related state law claims arising from the 2009 arrest and subsequent prosecution. /s/George Z. Singal_____________ U.S. District Judge Dated this 7th day of June, 2011.
]]>
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.
