GARLAND v. NEWMAN ET AL

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.
Case 1:24-cv-00007-NT Document 11 Filed 02/28/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:
<pageID>