Opinion
1:20-CV-00008-LEW
04-25-2022
COLBY DOUCETTE, et al., Plaintiffs v. AROOSTOOK COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants
ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
LANCE E. WALKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Plaintiffs in this action, including Plaintiff Herbert Adams IV, failed to prosecute the action and the Court dismissed their complaint on that basis. The Clerk entered the Court's Judgment to that effect on May 19, 2020. Nearly two years later, on March 16, 2022, Mr. Adams filed a “Notice of Intent” (ECF No. 16) to proceed.
On March 31, 2022, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copies to the parties, his Recommended Decision on Request for Post-Judgment Relief (ECF No. 18), in which decision the Magistrate Judge recommends denying Mr. Adams's request to proceed with the above captioned case because more than a year has passed since the entry of the Judgment and grounds do not exists to justify reopening the case pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Doucette has filed a timely objection.
Mr. Adams' objection is OVERRULED for the reasons set forth in the Recommended Decision. As the Magistrate Judge noted in the decision under review, the dismissal of the complaint and the closure of the case does not preclude Mr. Adams from filing a new complaint to open a new case involving the same claims and defendants. Rec. Dec. at 5 n.3. However, Mr. Adams may not pick up and proceed with his claims in this case because the case is now closed and he lacks a sufficient ground for relief from the Judgment under Rule 60(b).
Having reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record, and having made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Recommended Decision, I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in the Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary in this matter. The Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED and Mr. Adams's request for post-judgment relief is DENIED.
So Ordered.