ROLLINS v. MAGNUSSON

2005 | Cited 0 times | D. Maine | February 2, 2005

AMENDED ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on August 5,2004 her Recommended Decision. The Plaintiff filed his objections to theRecommended Decision on August 17, 2004 and the Defendants filed theirobjections to the Recommended Decision on August 19, 2004. I havereviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision,together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination ofall matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision;and I concur with the recommendations of the United States MagistrateJudge for the reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision, anddetermine that no further proceeding is necessary.

1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED.Page 2

2. It is further ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket #147) filed by the Prison Health Service Defendants including Prison Health Services, Inc., Celia Englander, Lucia Elder, Matthew Turner, Lana Savage, Suzanne Gunston, Rick Laliberty, Anne Leidinger, Pam Babb and also including Defendants Martin A. Magnusson, Jeffrey D. Merrill, Holly Howieson, Brian Castonguay, and Linda Provencher is GRANTED.1

1. In its Order dated January 31, 2005 affirming the report andrecommended decision dated August 5, 2004 (Docket #214), this Courtoverlooked footnote 1 in the Magistrate Judge's Order on Motion forReconsideration dated August 30, 2004. This footnote reads: These defendants correctly note that if the Court affirms my recommended decision, defendants Magnusson, Merrill, Howieson, Castonguay and Provencher, none of whom are correctional officers, will be granted summary judgment in connection with the complaint.This footnote clarifies that the August 5, 2004 recommended decision onDefendants' Motion for Summary Judgment applied not just to the "PHSDefendants", but with equal force to the Defendants listed in footnote1. This Amended Order, therefore, clarifies that in affirming the August5, 2004 Recommended Decision, this Court is granting judgment in favor ofeach defendant listed above.Page 1

Back to top