SCHOFF v. FITZPATRICK et al, No. 2:2016cv00609 - Document 54 (D. Me. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE - adopting 51 Report and Recommendations re 26 Motion for Summary Judgment. By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (mnw)

Download PDF
SCHOFF v. FITZPATRICK et al Doc. 54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE STEVEN R. SCHOFF, JR. Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH FITZPATRICK,et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 2:16-cv-609-NT ) ) ) ) ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On March 7, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copies to counsel, his Recommended Decision on the Defendants’ Motion to for Summary Judgment. The Defendants filed an objection to the Recommended Decision on March 21, 2018. 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 of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in the Recommended Decision. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part as follows: 1. as to all the Defendants on the Plaintiff’s claim of denial of access to the courts; Dockets.Justia.com 2. as to Defendants Penny Bailey and Scott Landry on the Plaintiff’s legal mail claim; 2. on the Plaintiff’s retaliation claim; and 4. to preclude any award of compensatory damages for emotional distress, but reserve judgment on whether the Plaintiff may be able to establish an actual injury to a constitutional right that would otherwise support the Plaintiff’s request for compensatory damages. The remaining claims are against Defendants Verrier and Brown and are on the Plaintiff’s First Amendment legal mail claim and Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claim. SO ORDERED. /s/ Nancy Torresen__________________ United States Chief District Judge Dated this 18th day of September, 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.