HINOTE v. JORDAN et al, No. 2:2019cv00204 - Document 16 (D. Me. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE accepting Report and Recommended Decision re: 1 Complaint By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (CCS)

Download PDF
HINOTE v. JORDAN et al Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE VINCENT T. HINOTE, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT JORDAN, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:19-cv-00204-JAW ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On May 8, 2019, Vincent T. Hinote filed a complaint against Scott Jordan in his personal capacity and official capacity as a lieutenant at the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office and Kevin Joyce in his official capacity as the sheriff at the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office (Defendants), alleging that they violated his First and Eighth Amendment rights. Compl. (ECF No. 1). On May 30, 2019, Mr. Hinote filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Appl. to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (ECF No. 5). The Court granted the application on May 31, 2019. Order Granting Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 7). The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on August 15, 2019, his Recommended Decision, in which he recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Hinote’s claims except his claim that the Defendants denied him adequate nutrition during the fifteen days he spent in administrative segregation. Recommended Decision After Review of Pl.’s Compl. Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A (ECF No. 12) (Recommended Decision). Mr. Hinote objected to the Recommended Decision on September 3, 2019. Dockets.Justia.com Pl.’s Obj. to Review (ECF No. 14). The Court reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; the Court has made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision; and the Court concurs with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision, and determines that no further proceeding is necessary. 1. The Court AFFIRMS the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 12). 2. The Court DISMISSES the Plaintiff’s claims regarding violations of his First Amendment rights, due process rights, and rights to access to the courts, but does not dismiss his Eighth Amendment claim regarding the adequacy of the meals he received for fifteen days during administrative segregation (ECF No. 1). 3. The Court ORDERS service of the complaint upon Scott Jordan and Kevin Joyce. SO ORDERED. /s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr. JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 16th day of December, 2019 2

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.