VAN DAM v. ROWE et al, No. 1:2022cv00120 - Document 3 (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
<![CDATA[
VAN DAM v. ROWE et al Doc. 3 Case 1:22-cv-00120-JAW Document 3 Filed 06/28/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE JOSEPH VAN DAM, Plaintiff, v. DR ROWE, et al., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:22-cv-00120-JAW ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On May 18, 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 Compl. (ECF No. 2) (Recommended Decision); see also Compl. (ECF No. 1). No objection having been filed to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, the Court Affirms the Recommended Decision 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. In affirming the Recommended Decision, the Court emphasizes the Magistrate Judge’s observation that the use of racially derogatory language, assuming it is Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:22-cv-00120-JAW Document 3 Filed 06/28/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 12 occurring, is “unprofessional and deplorable.” Recommended Decision at 4 (quoting Lapomarda v. Skibinski, No. 2:09-cv-00377-DBH, 2009 WL 4884500, at *3 n.2 (D. Me. Dec. 10, 2009)). The same can be said of language harassing an inmate due to his mental health conditions. On this point, the Court acknowledges it has only Mr. Van Dam’s allegation, not the responses of the corrections officers, and in screening Mr. Van Dam’s Complaint, the Court assumes the truth of the allegations. If the corrections officers are engaged in this harassment, this order does not condone their alleged statements. The order only concludes that the allegations are not sufficient to establish a wrong of constitutional magnitude. 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 28th day of June, 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.
