TINKHAM et al v. PERRY et al, No. 1:2012cv00229 - Document 92 (D. Me. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE granting 29 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting in part and denying in part 40 Motion to Dismiss; denying 42 Motion to Dismiss; granting 43 Motion to Dismiss; denying 81 Motion to Amend. ; adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 83 Report and Recommendations ; denying as moot 85 Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Maine PETER TINKHAM et al., Plaintiffs v. LAURA PERRY et al., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:12-cv-00229-GZS ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On April 2, 2013,the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court her Recommended Decision (ECF No. 83). Defendant Alan Perry filed his Objection In Part to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 89) on April 19, 2013. Plaintiffs filed their Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 90) on April 22, 2013. Defendant L. Clinton Boothby filed his Response to Plaintiff s Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 91) on May 8, 2013. The Court has also received and reviewed Defendants Responses in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Amend (ECF Nos. 86 & 86). I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceedings on the matters addressed by the Recommended Decision is necessary. 1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 83) is hereby AFFIRMED. 2. It is further hereby ORDERED that Defendant Boothby s Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 29 and 43) are GRANTED. 3. It is further hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Amend (ECF No. 81) is DENIED. 4. It is further hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Laura Perry and Nina Perry (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and that all claims against Nina Perry be DISMISSSED for lack of personal jurisdiction. 5. It is further hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Alan Perry (ECF No. 42) is DENIED. 6. It is further hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff s Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery (ECF No. 85), which is dated April 1, 2013 but was received and filed by the Court on April 8, 2013, is DENIED as MOOT in light of the affirmation of the Recommended Decision, which ruled in favor of Plaintiffs on the issue of diversity jurisdiction. 7. In accordance with the Magistrate Judge s February 26, 2013 Order (ECF No. 26), this matter shall now be set for a Local Rule 56(h) Conference before this judicial officer in Portland. Plaintiffs and counsel for the remaining Defendants shall appear in-person for this conference. /s/ George Z. Singal United States District Judge Dated this 14th day of May, 2013. 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.
