Summary
confirming that the Maine Department of Corrections, as a state agency, "is not, as a matter of law, amenable to suit pursuant to section 1983, whether for damages or declaratory or injunctive relief"
Summary of this case from Abdisamad v. City of LewistonOpinion
Docket no. 1:11-cv-00270-NT
11-02-2012
ANDREW P. FLOOD, Plaintiff, v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. Defendant,
ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On August 24, 2012, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copies to counsel, his Report and Recommended Decision. On September 10, 2012, the Plaintiff was granted a 30-day extension of time to file an objection to the Recommended Decision. The time within which to file objections expired on October 10, 2012 and no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge notified the parties that failure to object would waive their right to de novo review and appeal.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that:
1. The Defendants' motions to dismiss the operative Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 26, 41, and 83) for failure to state a claim with respect to any federal cause of action are GRANTED.
2. This Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state-law claim and those claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3. The Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 32), the State Defendants' objection to materials filed in support of that motion (ECF No. 74), and the Plaintiff's motion for discovery with respect to John and Jane Doe (ECF No. 89) are thus MOOTED.
SO ORDERED.
Nancy Torresen
United States District Judge