MARGARET J. KRAVCHUK, Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 1, 2003. Defendant Town of Bridgton filed a Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 105) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(c) on October 8, 2004. Plaintiff has not filed a response. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 7(b), Plaintiff is deemed to have waived objection. I now recommend Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED in its entirely for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and alternatively that the court dismiss the matter pursuant to Rule 12(c) because all claims in connection with the April 11, 2001, incident involving the Town of Bridgton were fully adjudicated in a prior proceeding.
Discussion
Plaintiff asserts four conspiracy counts against the Town: (1) conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his right to a Federal Firearms Dealers License, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count 13); (2) conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's First Amendment rights to travel and assemble, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count 15); (3) conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count 16); and (4) conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and unlawful conviction, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count 31).
Even the most charitable reading of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint reveals no factual allegation of Section 1983 wrongdoing by the Town. Further, despite the length and detail set forth in Plaintiff's 80-page Amended Complaint, Plaintiff does not allege nor articulate the Town's involvement in any "conspiracy" with anyone. Moreover, on June 20, 2003, the federal court granted summary judgment on behalf of the Town on Plaintiff's prior federal court action, in which Plaintiff brought claims against the Town arising from the very same April 11, 2001 incident repeatedly alluded to in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. As such, Plaintiff's latest effort against the Town is barred both by the doctrine of claim preclusion and for failure to state a claim.
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing unopposed arguments put forth in the Town of Bridgton's Motion to Dismiss, I recommend that the court DISMISS this complaint as to the Town of Bridgton.
NOTICE
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. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which
de novo review by the district court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within ten (10) days of being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within ten (10) 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.