RICHARDS v. CITY OF BANGOR, MAINE, No. 1:2011cv00446 - Document 48 (D. Me. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE - adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 44 Report and Recommendations for 42 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by CITY OF BANGOR, MAINE; mooting 46 Motion to Strike ; mooting 46 Motion Objection to Plaintiffs Untimely Filing of Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (mnw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE ADELINE E. RICHARDS, PLAINTIFF v. CITY OF BANGOR, MAINE, DEFENDANT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL NO. 1:11-CV-446-DBH ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On December 11, 2012, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copies to the parties, her Recommended Decision on the defendant s motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge attached this Notice to the Recommended Decision: A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate judge s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection. Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court s order. Recommended Decision at 15 (ECF No. 44). On December 28, 2012, the plaintiff filed her objects for re (42) Motion Summary Judgment filed by CITY of BANGOR, MAINE (ECF No. 45). Nowhere in that filing does she point to anything in the Recommended Decision to which she objects. Instead, the document appears to be a very late attempt to respond to the original motion for summary judgment. Because there is no objection to the Recommended Decision, the Recommended Decision is ADOPTED. The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is entered for the defendant. The defendant s motion to strike is MOOT. I need not resolve whether the plaintiff s objects for re (42) Motion Summary Judgment (ECF No. 45) meets the Rules requirement for a response to the original summary judgment motion. SO ORDERED. DATED THIS 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013 /S/D. BROCK HORNBY D. BROCK HORNBY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
