RIVARD v. HOWARD

District Court, D. Maine

RIVARD v. HOWARD

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MAINE

JEFFREY RIVARD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 2:25-cv-00329-SDN ) JULIE HOWARD and ) YORK COUNTY, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION On June 27, 2025, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court, with a copy to Plaintiff Jeffery Rivard, her Recommended Decision after preliminary review of Plaintiff Rivard’s complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B). Recommended Decision (ECF No. 6). The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the complaint due to Plaintiff Rivard’s failure to provide enough detail to state a claim or name a proper defendant in his complaint.

Id.

Plaintiff Rivard filed an objection to the Recommended Decision on July 9, 2025. Obj. to Ruling (ECF No. 7). A plaintiff must include in their complaint “the crucial detail[s] of who, what, when, where, and how” to state a plausible claim for relief. Byrne v. Maryland, No. 20- CV-00036,

2020 WL 1317731

(D. Me. Mar. 20, 2020), R&R adopted,

2020 WL 2202441

(May 6, 2020); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 570

(2007) (stating the plaintiff’s complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”). Here, Plaintiff Rivard’s complaint contains only one paragraph of conclusory statements that fails to meet the threshold for plausibility. See Pl.’s Compl. at 5. Similarly, Plaintiff Rivard’s objection contains additional conclusory statements and does not provide any argument that would allow me to find that the allegations in his complaint are plausible. See Obj. to Ruling. Accordingly, I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision and the Plaintiff’s objection, together with the entire record. I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Recommended

Decision, and I concur with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that, in accordance with

28 U.S.C. § 1915

and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

Dated this 6th day of August, 2025.

/s/ Stacey D. Neumann_ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown