Kurtis Henderson v. Maine State Prison, et al.

D. Maine

Kurtis Henderson v. Maine State Prison, et al.

DecidedJanuary 9, 2026

Docket1:25-cv-00412

StatusUnknown

This text of Kurtis Henderson v. Maine State Prison, et al. (Kurtis Henderson v. Maine State Prison, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kurtis Henderson v. Maine State Prison, et al., (D. Me. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MAINE

KURTIS HENDERSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:25-cv-00412-SDN ) MAINE STATE PRISON, ) et al., ) ) Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION On August 26, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommended decision (“R&R”) recommending that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed because “Plaintiff [did] not describe the substance of the grievances or otherwise explain the factual basis for any claims against the named defendants.” ECF No. 6 at 3. Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint to provide details of the excessive force allegedly perpetrated by Correctional Officer Davyd Arugue, although he did not include any allegations of inappropriate action by the unnamed defendant John Doe. ECF No. 9. On November 4, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a supplemental R&R, recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the Maine State Prison1 and John Doe, but permitting Plaintiff to proceed on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Davyd Arugue. ECF No. 12. In his supplemental R&R, the Magistrate Judge notified the parties that failure to object would waive their right to de novo review and appeal.

1 As an agency of the State of Maine, the Maine State Prison has immunity under the Eleventh Amendment against suits brought by citizens in federal court. See Poirier v. Mass. Dep’t of Corr., 558 F.3d 92, 97 n.6 (1st Cir. 2009) (“A plaintiff may seek prospective injunctive relief against a state official, but may not obtain such relief against a state or its agency because of the sovereign immunity bar of the Eleventh Amendment.”). The time within which to file an objection expired on January 25, 2023, and no objection was filed, either before or after the deadline. The Court finds no clear error and agrees with the findings set forth in the Supplemental Recommended Decision. It is therefore ORDERED that the Supplemental Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff’s claims against the Maine

State Prison and John Doe are DISMISSED. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff’s claims of excessive force may PROCEED as against Defendant Davyd Arugue. ECF No. 9. SO ORDERED.

Dated this 9th day of January, 2026.

/s/ Stacey D. Neumann UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MAINE

KURTIS HENDERSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:25-cv-00412-SDN ) MAINE STATE PRISON, ) et al., ) ) Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION On August 26, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommended decision (“R&R”) recommending that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed because “Plaintiff [did] not describe the substance of the grievances or otherwise explain the factual basis for any claims against the named defendants.” ECF No. 6 at 3. Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint to provide details of the excessive force allegedly perpetrated by Correctional Officer Davyd Arugue, although he did not include any allegations of inappropriate action by the unnamed defendant John Doe. ECF No. 9. On November 4, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a supplemental R&R, recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the Maine State Prison1 and John Doe, but permitting Plaintiff to proceed on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Davyd Arugue. ECF No. 12. In his supplemental R&R, the Magistrate Judge notified the parties that failure to object would waive their right to de novo review and appeal.

1 As an agency of the State of Maine, the Maine State Prison has immunity under the Eleventh Amendment against suits brought by citizens in federal court. See Poirier v. Mass. Dep’t of Corr., 558 F.3d 92, 97 n.6 (1st Cir. 2009) (“A plaintiff may seek prospective injunctive relief against a state official, but may not obtain such relief against a state or its agency because of the sovereign immunity bar of the Eleventh Amendment.”). The time within which to file an objection expired on January 25, 2023, and no objection was filed, either before or after the deadline. The Court finds no clear error and agrees with the findings set forth in the Supplemental Recommended Decision. It is therefore ORDERED that the Supplemental Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff’s claims against the Maine

State Prison and John Doe are DISMISSED. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff’s claims of excessive force may PROCEED as against Defendant Davyd Arugue. ECF No. 9. SO ORDERED.

Dated this 9th day of January, 2026.

/s/ Stacey D. Neumann UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kurtis Henderson v. Maine State Prison, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kurtis-henderson-v-maine-state-prison-et-al-med-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack