Paraskevopoulos v. Central Maine Medical Center, 2:17-cv-00166-JAW. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Maine
Number: infdco20190926976
Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 25, 2019
Summary: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. , District Judge . On October 31, 2018, Leo Paraskevopoulos moved for partial summary judgment as to Central Maine Medical Center's (CMMC) affirmative defense that Mr. Paraskevopoulos failed to mitigate his lost wage damages. Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No. 66). On December 6, 2018, CMMC filed a response. Def.'s Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No. 73). Mr. Paraskevopoulos filed
Summary: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. , District Judge . On October 31, 2018, Leo Paraskevopoulos moved for partial summary judgment as to Central Maine Medical Center's (CMMC) affirmative defense that Mr. Paraskevopoulos failed to mitigate his lost wage damages. Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No. 66). On December 6, 2018, CMMC filed a response. Def.'s Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No. 73). Mr. Paraskevopoulos filed a..
More
ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR., District Judge.
On October 31, 2018, Leo Paraskevopoulos moved for partial summary judgment as to Central Maine Medical Center's (CMMC) affirmative defense that Mr. Paraskevopoulos failed to mitigate his lost wage damages. Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No. 66). On December 6, 2018, CMMC filed a response. Def.'s Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No. 73). Mr. Paraskevopoulos filed a reply on December 21, 2018. Pl.'s Reply in Support of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No. 76). The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on August 9, 2019, his Recommended Decision, in which he recommended that the Court grant the motion. Recommended Decision on Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (ECF No. 108) (Recommended Decision). CMMC did not object to the Recommended Decision.
The Court reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; the Court has made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and the Court concurs with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision, and determines that no further proceeding is necessary.
1. The Court AFFIRMS the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 108).
2. The Court GRANTS the Plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 66).
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
