Armstead v. Hoeveler

2003 | Cited 0 times | D. Maine | January 9, 2003


The United States Magistrate Judge having filed with the Court on December 27, 2002, with copies to the pro se Plaintiff and to counsel, her Recommended Decision herein (Docket Item No. 7 ); and Plaintiff having filed her objection thereto on January 7, 2003 (Docket Item No. 8); 1 and this Court having reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; and this Court having made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, and concurring with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision, and having determined that no further proceeding is necessary; it is ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Plaintiff's objection is hereby DENIED;

(2) The Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED;

(3) Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because it does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.


Dated at Portland, Maine this 9th day of January, 2003.

1. The Court doubts that an objection to the Recommended Decision has been properly filed under the applicable rules since Plaintiff's only response to the Recommended Decision has been to file a copy of the Recommended Decision with brief long-hand comments penned on it. In the interests of judicial efficiency in this particular case, the Court has elected to treat that filing as a functionally sufficient objection to the Recommended Decision and has accorded de novo review to it.

Back to top