MACDONALD v. DUDDY et al, No. 2:2022cv00293 - Document 51 (D. Me. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION denying 45 Motion to Amend ; accepting 50 REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION ; dismissing 1 Complaint. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (CCS)

Download PDF

MACDONALD v. DUDDY et al Doc. 51 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE KINLEY MACDONALD, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE MICHAEL DUDDY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:22-cv-00293-JAW ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION On September 21, 2022, Kinley MacDonald, an inmate at the York County Jail in the State of Maine, filed a lawsuit against Maine District Court Deputy Chief Judge Lea-Anne Sutton, Maine District Court Judge Michael Duddy, York County Superior Court Justice Richard Mulhern, and Judges John Doe 1 and 2; Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Commissioner Jeanne Lambrew and four DHHS “worker[s]”; and Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey and three Assistant Attorneys General. Compl. (ECF No. 1). Ms. MacDonald sought redress from various alleged injustices she says occurred or are still occurring in state court child-protective proceedings. Id. ¶¶ 122-26. On August 30, 2023, the Magistrate Judge, after reviewing the allegations in Ms. MacDonald’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 1 issued a recommended 28 U.S.C. § 1915A directs courts to “review, before docketing, if feasible or . . . as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or office or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The statute mandates dismissal of such a complaint if it is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 1 Dockets.Justia.com decision, recommending that the Court dismiss Ms. MacDonald’s complaint. Recommended Decision to Dismiss Pl.’s Compl. (ECF No. 50). Ms. MacDonald did not object to the recommended decision. Although the Court was not legally required to abstain from ruling on the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision pending resolution of a petition for writ of certiorari, United States ex rel. Escobar v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., 842 F.3d 103, 106 n.1 (1st Cir. 2016), the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, decided to await the U.S. Supreme Court’s resolution of Ms. MacDonald’s petitions for writs of certiorari before acting on the recommended decision. See In Re Kinley MacDonald v. Michael Duddy, et al. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, No. 23-5216 (June 27, 2023); Kinley MacDonald v. Lea-Anne Sutton, Judge, District Court of Maine, et al. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, No. 23-5184 (Dec. 21, 2022). On October 2, 2023, the Supreme Court issued an order denying Ms. MacDonald’s certiorari petitions. See Order List: Monday, October 2, 2023 at 34, 40. In light of the Supreme Court’s denial of the certiorari petitions, the Court has now reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision. The Court reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision, together with the entire record, including Ms. MacDonald’s motion to amend complaint (ECF No. 45); 2 the Court made a de novo determination of all matters The Court reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision on Ms. MacDonald’s motion to amend complaint under both the dispositive and non-dispositive standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a)-(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636. See Sargent v. Nordx, No. 2:20-cv-00467-JAW, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226506, at *10-11 (D. Me. Dec. 16, 2022). Applying either a “clearly erroneous or . . . contrary to law” or a “de novo” standard, the result is the same. 2 2 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, denies Ms. MacDonald’s motion to amend and dismisses Ms. MacDonald’s complaint. 1. The Court therefore DENIES Kinley MacDonald’s Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 45). 2. The Court further ORDERS that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 50) be and hereby is AFFIRMED. 3. The Court further ORDERS that Kinley MacDonald’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be and hereby is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. /s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr. JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 16th day of October, 2023 3

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.