McMichael v. Pallito et al

Filing 94

ORDER AFFIRMING, APPROVING and ADOPTING the Magistrate Judge's 93 Report and Recommendation. Defendants' 83 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff's 87 Opposing Motion is DENIED. This case is DISMISSED. Any appeal taken from this Order would not be good faith as such an appeal would be frivolous. Signed by District Judge J. Garvan Murtha on 12/01/2011. (kak)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT THURMOND McMICHAEL, Plaintiff v. ANDREW PALLITO, ROBERT KUPEC, JAY SIMONS, PHIL FERNANDEZ, STAN MORSE, DAVID BULEY, STEPHEN McCARTHY and BARBARA LESTER, Defendants : : : : : : : : : : : File No. 1:09-cv-130-jgm-jmc ORDER The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation was filed October 24, 2011. (Doc. 93.) After de novo review and absent objection, the Report and Recommendation is AFFIRMED, APPROVED and ADOPTED. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 83) is GRANTED. To the extent Plaintiff’s opposition memorandum (Doc. 87) is an opposing motion, it is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 84) is DENIED as moot. It is further certified that any appeal taken in forma pauperis from this Order would not be taken in good faith because such an appeal would be frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). SO ORDERED. Dated at Brattleboro, in the District of Vermont, this 1st day of December, 2011. /s/ J. Garvan Murtha Honorable J. Garvan Murtha United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?