TRUMAN v. ARMSTRONG et al, No. 2:2017cv00004 - Document 14 (D. Me. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE mooting 6 Motion for Order; mooting 8 Motion for Contempt ; mooting 9 Motion for Oral Argument/Hearing; adopting 12 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (ccs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
TRUMAN v. ARMSTRONG et al Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE PETER P. TRUMAN, PLAINTIFF V. PAULA ARMSTRONG, ET AL., DEFENDANTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL NO. 2:17-CV-04-DBH ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On August 11, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with a copy to the plaintiff, his Order Granting Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Recommended Dismissal of Case. The time within which to file objections expired on August 25, 2017, and no objection has been filed. The Magistrate Judge notified the plaintiff that failure to object would waive his right to de novo review and appeal. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because it seeks monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief and fails to state a claim as to which relief can be granted. The plaintiff’s subsequent filings styled as motions for contempt (ECF No. 8) and for a hearing (ECF No. 9), as well as any relief requested in his filings styled as correspondence (ECF Nos. 6, 10, and 11), are MOOT. SO ORDERED. DATED THIS 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 /S/D. BROCK HORNBY D. BROCK HORNBY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
