ADAMS v. AROOSTOOK COUNTY JAIL et al, No. 1:2019cv00471 - Document 13 (D. Me. 2020)
Court Description: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 1 Complaint, filed by HERBERT M ADAMS, IV Objections to R&R due by 2/5/2020 By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (jwr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ADAMS v. AROOSTOOK COUNTY JAIL et al Doc. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE HERBERT M. ADAMS IV, Plaintiff v. AROOSTOOK COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:19-cv-00471-GZS SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMEDED DECISION Following a review of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, I concluded that Plaintiff had not alleged facts that would support a plausible claim against any of the defendants. (Recommended Decision at 4, ECF No. 10.) Accordingly, I recommended the Court dismiss the matter. (Id.) After the recommended decision was issued, Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint, which motion was granted. (Motion, ECF No. 11; Order, ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff’s amendment, however, does not adequately address the deficiencies noted in the recommended decision. As explained in the recommended decision, “[a] pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Aschcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In his amendment to the complaint, Plaintiff asserts his claim is based on “medical negligence, cruel and unusual punishment, violation of [his] constitutional rights, which of 8th Amendment and 10th Amendment rights.” Dockets.Justia.com (Amendment to complaint at 3, ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff, however, has not alleged any facts that would support an actionable claim based on any of the theories he references. In other words, as with Plaintiff’s original complaint, Plaintiff’s allegations are “devoid of [the] further factual enhancement” necessary to state a cause of action. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because Plaintiff’s amendment to his complaint does not adequately address the deficiencies identified in the recommended decision, the reasoning of the recommended decision applies to the original complaint and the amendment to the complaint. Dismissal is thus appropriate. Accordingly, based on the analysis set forth in the recommended decision and in this supplement to the recommended decision, after a review of the pleadings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, I recommend the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint as amended. NOTICE 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. § 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. Any objections to the Recommended Decision dated December 12, 2020 (ECF No. 10), and/or this Supplemental Recommended Decision shall be due within fourteen (14) days of being served with this Supplemental Recommended Decision. 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. /s/ John C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge nd Dated this 22 day of January, 2020. 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.
