February 3, 2015
ZACHARY DAVID DEVEAU, Plaintiff,
YORK COUNTY JAIL, et als., Defendants.
ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On November 7, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued an order indicating that Mr. Deveau’s Complaint against the York County Jail and its administrator was subject to dismissal for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, but giving Mr. Deveau time to file an amended complaint with additional facts. Order at 1-2 (ECF No. 4). Mr. Deveau did not respond to that Order.
On December 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommended decision based on the allegations in the originally-filed Complaint and in that recommended decision, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Zachary David Deveau’s Complaint against the York County Jail and the York County Jail Administrator. Recommended Decision (ECF No. 5). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Mr. Deveau was required to file any objection to the recommended decision within fourteen days after having been served with a copy thereof, and failure to file a timely objection constitutes a waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.
On December 9, 2014, the Clerk’s Office mailed Mr. Deveau a copy of the recommended decision to the Limerick, Maine address listed in his Complaint and the Clerk’s Office set the matter ahead until December 30, 2014 for any objection. The December 30, 2014 deadline passed but Mr. Deveau failed to file an objection. Concerned that Mr. Deveau may have used his Limerick, Maine address even though he was still incarcerated in York County Jail, the Court ordered the Clerk’s Office to mail a copy of the recommended decision to Mr. Deveau in care of the York County Jail. Mr. Deveau has failed to answer any correspondence from the Court since November, 2014.
The Court has reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision together with the entire record and has made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision. The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations and determines no further proceeding is necessary. Accordingly, upon de novo review and absent any objection from the Plaintiff, the Court AFFIRMS the recommended decision of the Magistrate Judge and DISMISSES the Complaint (ECF No. 1).