DOYLE v. WARREN et al, No. 2:2017cv00013 - Document 19 (D. Me. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 13 Report and Recommendation. By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (mjlt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
DOYLE v. WARREN et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE MICHAEL DOYLE, Plaintiff, v. JUSTICE THOMAS WARREN and STATE OF MAINE, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2:17-CV-013-NT ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On August 11, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copy to the Plaintiff, his Recommended Decision after a preliminary review of the Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C.§ 1915. Recommended Decision (ECF No. 13). The Plaintiff filed an objection to the Recommended Decision on August 21, 2017 (ECF No. 15).1 The State of Maine responded to the Plaintiff’s objection on September 1, 2017 (ECF No. 17). I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Recommended Decision. I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. The only objection the Plaintiff makes is to the recommendation that his motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. The Plaintiff has made no objection to the recommendation that his claims be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Even if I found there to be merit to his objection to the denial of in forma pauperis status, the Plaintiff has waived any arguments directed at the recommendation that his Complaint fails to state a claim against Justice Thomas Warren or the State of Maine. 1 Dockets.Justia.com It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED and the Plaintiff’s claims against Justice Thomas Warren and the State of Maine are DISMISSED with prejudice. SO ORDERED. /s/ Nancy Torresen__________________ United States Chief District Judge Dated this 13th day of September, 2017 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.
