Ward V. Kittery School Dep't

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MAINE YORK, ss. DEBORAH DANIELLE WARD and BRANDON LAMONT WARD, SR., individually and on behalf of their son, BRANDON LAMONT WARD, JR., Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-2012-171 Ptl r ยทยท-'lor<.- ) ) ) ) ) ) ) V. DOCKET NO. CV-2012-171 ) KITTERY SCHOOL DEPARTtvfENT, /22/:J Of J 7 ) ) ) ) ) Defendant DEBORAH DANIELLE WARD and BRANDON LAMONT WARD, SR., individually and on behalf of their son, BRANDON LAMONT WARD, JR., Plaintiffs v. JOHN ALLEN WRIGHT and "THE PROVIDER" ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DOCKET NO. CV-259 ORDER For the reasons stated in the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff Brandon Lamont Ward, Sr.'s claims asserted against all Defendants in both Ward v. Kittery School Department, Docket No. CV-20 12-171 and Ward v. Provider, Docket No. CV-2012-259, are hereby -5- dismissed with prejudice and withont costs to any party. Defendant Kittery School Department's Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED. Dated: JA {/ 2-2-. 2-Df) Justice, Maine Superior Court ; -6- Case No. CV-12-171 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF: DEBORAH DANIELLE WARD PATRICK BEDARD LAW OFFICE OF BEDARD & BOBROW POBOX366 ELIOT ME 03903 PLAINTIFF BRANDON LAMONT WARD, SR PRO SE 8920 RIDGELAND CHICAGO IL 60617 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT: MELISSA HEWEY DRUMMOND WOODSUM 84 MARGINAL WAY SUITE 600 PORTLAND ME 04101 THOMAS MCKEON RICHARDSON WHITMAN LARGE & BADGER PO BOX 9545 PORTLAND ME 04112-9545 CV-11-259 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF: DEBORAH DANIELLE WARD PATRICK BEDARD LAW OFFICE OF BEDARD & BOBROW POBOX366 ELIOT ME 03903 PLAINTIFF BRANDON LAMONT WARD, SR. PRO SE 8920 RIDGELAND CHICAGO IL 60617 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT JOHN ALLEN WRIGHT JONATHAN BROGAN NORMAN HANSON & DETROY LLC POBOX4600 PORTLAND ME 04112 FRED J DESMARAIS DESMARAIS EWING & JONSTON PLLC 175 CANAL STREET MANCHESTER NH 03101 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT: THE PROVIDER ENTERPRISES INC EDWINNA C VANDERZANDEN DOUGLAS N STEERE ANDREW SCHULMAN GETMAN SCHUL THESS & STEERE PA 1838 ELM ST MANCHESTRNH 03104

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.