GARLAND v. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE RANDOLPH WAYNE GARLAND, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) 1:24-cv-00007-NT ) CHRISTINA NEWMAN, et al., ) ) Defendants ) ORDER WITHDRAWING RECOMMENDED DECISION Upon review of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, I recommended the Court dismiss the matter unless Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which he alleged facts that would support a claim against one or more of the individuals named as defendants. (Recommended Decision, ECF No. 9.) In accordance with the recommended decision, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 10.) After a review of the amended complaint, recognizing that the Court “must construe [a self- represented plaintiff’s] complaint ‘liberally’ and hold it ‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,’” Waterman v. White Interior Sols., No. 2:19-cv- 00032-JDL, 2019 WL 5764661, at *2 (D. Me. Nov. 5, 2019) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)), I conclude that Plaintiff has alleged enough facts to withstand the scrutiny of a preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. Accordingly, I withdraw the Recommended Decision. Service is authorized on the named defendants. /s/ John C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge Dated this 28th day of February, 2024.