VAN DAM v MAINE STATE PRISON, No. 1:2022cv00033 - Document 6 (D. Me. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE accepting 2 Report and Recommended Decision; dismissing without prejudice 1 Complaint By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (CCS)

Download PDF
VAN DAM v MAINE STATE PRISON Doc. 6 Case 1:22-cv-00033-JAW Document 6 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE JOSEPH VAN DAM, Plaintiff, v. MAINE STATE PRISON, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:22-cv-00033-JAW ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On February 8, 2022, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a decision recommending that the Court dismiss Joseph Van Dam’s Complaint pursuant to a review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Recommended Decision After Review of Pl.’s Compl. (ECF No. 2) (Recommended Decision); see also Compl. (ECF No. 1). Mr. Van Dam filed his objection to the Recommended Decision on February 18, 2022. Obj. to Report and Recommended Decision (ECF No. 3) (Pl.’s Obj.). On February 22, 2022, Mr. Van Dam filed additional attachments with the Court. See Additional Attachs. (ECF No. 4). The Court reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; the Court has made a de novo determination of all matters 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, and determines that no further proceeding is necessary. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:22-cv-00033-JAW Document 6 Filed 03/14/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 21 1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 2) is hereby AFFIRMED. 2. It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED. /s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr. JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 14th day of March, 2022 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.