JEFFREY C. BEARCE, Plaintiff,
CITY OF WATERVILLE, Defendant.
JEFFREY C. BEARCE, Plaintiff Represented by Kevin Haskins Matthew J. Lamourie Stephen E. F. Langsdorf Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau, & Pachios, LLP
CITY OF WATERVILLE, Defendant. Represented by Edward R. Benjamin, Jr. Rosie M. Williams Thompson & Bowie, LLP
ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JON D. LEVY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge filed his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 28) with the court on June 30, 2014, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The plaintiff (“Bearce”) filed an Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 29) on July 17. The defendant filed a Response to the plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 30) on August 1. The parties participated in oral argument on September 4.
I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, together with the entire record, and have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision. Although I ultimately concur with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions as set forth in his Recommended Decision and determine that no further proceeding is necessary, I do so with the following caveat: I do not adopt the Recommended Decision’s treatment of the report of Dr. John Bielecki (ECF No. 19-12), which is cited in support of the conclusion that “a reasonable jury could find that Dr. Bielecki found that [Bearce] could return to a desk job but nothing more strenuous until Dr. Bielecki completed the testing he wished to pursue.” See ECF No. 28 at 15-16 (citing ECF No. 19-12 at 5). There is no dispute that the defendant did not receive Bielecki’s six-page report, which was dated January 17, until well after Bearce was terminated in February 2011. See ECF No. 30 at 3. Instead, the defendant received a shorter, one-page report from Bielecki on January 7, which indicated only that Bearce required further evaluation before he could be cleared to return to work. ECF No. 19-20.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED. The defendant’s ...