Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 08-31-2022

Case Style:

Jamaura Woods v. Auburn Police Department and Travis Barnies

Case Number: 2:21-cv-00364

Judge: John C. Nivison

Court: United States District Court for the District of Maine (Cumberland County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:





Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Portland Personal Injury Lawyer Directory


If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer.


Defendant's Attorney: Jordan T. Quenneville and Kasia S. Park

Description: Portland, Maine pro se Plaintiff, representing herself without a lawyer, sued Defendant on a civil rights violation theory.

Plaintiff alleges her constitutional rights were violated in connection with her arrest in January 2021. Defendant Auburn Police Department has moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion.

Following a review of the record and after consideration of the issues generated by Defendant's motion, I recommend the Court grant Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The facts set forth below are derived from Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff's factual allegations are deemed true when evaluating a motion to dismiss. McKee v. Cosby, 874 F.3d 54, 59 (1st Cir. 2017).

Plaintiff alleges she was arrested by one of Defendant's officers[1] on January 4, 2021. (Complaint at 4.) According to Plaintiff, Defendant's officers entered her home without a warrant, without consent, without an emergency, and arrested her on false charges using excessive force. (...
Woods v. Auburn Police Dep't (D. Me. 2022)

Outcome:
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate judge's report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection.

Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court's order.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: