ZAGKLARA v. SPRAGUE ENERGY CORP, No. 2:2010cv00445 - Document 108 (D. Me. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE denying 70 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 97 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Maine EIRINI ZAGKLARA, Plaintiff v. SPRAGUE ENERGY CORP., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. LEOPARD SHIPPING, et al., Third-Party Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:10-cv-445-GZS ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on July 2, 2012, his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 97). Defendant filed its Objection to the Recommended Decision on Defendant s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 101) on August 2, 2012. Plaintiff filed her Objection to the Recommended Decision on Defendant s Motion to Exclude Expert Report with Memorandum of Law in Support of Objection (ECF Nos. 102 & 103 respectively) on August 2, 2012. Defendant filed its Response to Plaintiff s Objection to the Recommended Decision on its Motion to Exclude Expert Report (ECF No. 104) on August 16, 2012. Plaintiff filed her Response to Defendant s Objection to the Recommended Decision on its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 107) on August 21, 2012. 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 his Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. 1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED. 2. It is ORDERED that Defendant s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff s Expert s Report (ECF No. 86) is GRANTED as to its use by the Plaintiff in opposition to Defendant s Motion for Summary Judgment. 3. It is ORDERED that the Court RESERVES RULING on the admissibility of the testimony of Plaintiff s Expert, Paul Zorich, at the time of trial in this case. 4. It is ORDERED that Defendant s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 70) is DENIED. /s/George Z. Singal_____________ U.S. District Judge Dated this 24th day of August, 2012.
]]>
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.
