UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

KINLEY MACDONALD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:22-cv-00302-JAW ) YORK COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION On October 3, 2022, Kinley MacDonald, an inmate at the York County Jail, filed a complaint against the York County Sheriff, the Department of Corrections, and several corrections officers and other county personnel. Compl. (ECF No. 1). On October 20, 2023, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Recommended Decision in which he recommended that the Court deny Ms. MacDonald’s motion to amend her complaint on the ground of futility and dismiss her complaint both because she failed to comply with numerous court orders and because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Recommended Decision to Dismiss Action (ECF No. 36). Ms. MacDonald was required to file objections to the Recommended Decision by November 3, 2023; however, she failed to file any objections within the required time. Cognizant of the potential difficulties with inmate mail, the Court waited until November 16, 2023 and, having received no objection from Ms. MacDonald, the Court issued an order affirming the Recommended Decision and entered judgment in favor of the Defendants and against Ms. MacDonald. Order Affirming Recommended Decision (ECF No. 37); J. (ECF No. 38). On December 6, 2023, Ms. MacDonald filed two documents: (1) a motion for

enlargement of time to object and correct errors, and (2) a notice of appeal. Mot. for Enlargement of Time to Obj./Correct Errors (ECF No. 39) (Mot. for Enlargement); Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 40). Ms. MacDonald apparently filed these two documents in the alternative as she clarified in her notice of appeal that she wished to appeal only if the Court denied her motion for enlargement. Notice of Appeal at 1. On December 6, 2023, the Court issued an order vacating its judgment and

ordered the Clerk of Court to resend Ms. MacDonald the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision. Order Vacating J. and Order Affirming Recommended Decision and Ordering the Clerk to Resend the Recommended Decision to Pl. (ECF No. 41). However, the Court sua sponte reconsidered its December 6, 2023 order, concluding that, because a notice of appeal was filed, it did not have the authority to vacate the judgment being appealed. Accordingly, on December 7, 2023, the Court vacated its December 6, 2023 order. Order Vacating Order (ECF No. 42).

Ms. MacDonald’s appeal then proceeded in the ordinary course to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On February 22, 2024, the First Circuit dismissed Ms. MacDonald’s appeal for failure to pay the appellate filing fee. U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the First Circuit J. (ECF No. 46). On March 15, 2024, the First Circuit issued its mandate, returning jurisdiction to this Court. U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the First Circuit Mandate (ECF No. 47). In her motion for enlargement, Ms. MacDonald asked either for an opportunity to respond to the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge or to proceed with her appeal. Mot. for Enlargement at 2 (“Therefore, Plaintiff requests an opportunity

to respond to the decisions or accept her Notice of appeal if the Motion is denied”). As Ms. MacDonald proceeded with her appeal, the Court dismissed her motion for enlargement as moot on March 27, 2024. Order (ECF No. 48). Even so, because Ms. MacDonald contended in her motion for enlargement that she had not received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s October 20, 2023 Recommended Decision, the Court was not certain that Ms. MacDonald had an opportunity to object

to the Recommended Decision before the Court affirmed the Recommended Decision and issued a judgment against her complaint. To address Ms. MacDonald’s claim that she never received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, immediately after the Court issued its now vacated decision dated December 6, 2023, the Clerk of Court sent Ms. MacDonald a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s October 20, 2023 Recommended Decision. On April 8, 2024, in an effort to be fair to Ms. MacDonald, pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the Court sua sponte vacated its Order Affirming Recommended Decision (ECF No. 37) and its Judgment of Dismissal (ECF No. 38) and granted Ms. MacDonald time to object to the Recommended Decision if she wished to do so. Status Order (ECF No. 49). In its April 8, 2024 order, the Court placed Ms. MacDonald on notice that even though she could object to the Recommended Decision, she had to file any objections to the Recommended Decision on or before April 25, 2024. Id. at 4. The Court also informed Ms. MacDonald that if she needed additional time, she could move to extend the time for good cause shown, but she had to do so before April 25, 2024. Id.

The time for Ms. MacDonald to object to the Recommended Decision has now fully expired and the Court has received neither a motion for extension of time to object to the Recommended Decision nor an objection to the Recommended Decision itself. The Court therefore reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, together with the entire record, including Ms. MacDonald’s motions to amend her complaint.1 The Court made a de novo determination of all

matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, and the Court concurs with the Recommended Decision, denies Ms. MacDonald’s motions to amend and dismisses her complaint. 1. The Court therefore DENIES Kinley MacDonald’s Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 31). 2. The Court further DENIES Kinley MacDonald’s Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 35).

3. The Court further ORDERS that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 36) be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

1 The Court reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision on Ms. MacDonald’s motions to amend her complaint under both the dispositive and nondispositive standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a)-(b) and

. See Sargent v. Nordx, No. 2:20-cv-00467-JAW,

, at *10-11 (D. Me. Dec. 16, 2022). Applying either a “clearly erroneous or . . . contrary to law” or a “de novo” standard, the result is the same. 4. The Court further ORDERS that Kinley MacDonald’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be and hereby is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr. JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 6th day of May, 2024