Hutt v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 68

OPINION AND ORDER Adopting 63 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 6/17/2015. (pac)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

MELISSA DUMONT,
as the Personal Representative for the
Estate of Robert Donald Hutt,
Plaintiff,

v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, IMAN GONZALEZ,
KEITH IVENS, TERESA LANIER,
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC,
MICHAEL E. RAPAPORT,
MITCHELL MILLER, and
ANDREW PALLITO,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

20\5 JUN ll PM \: l \

Case No. 2:14-cv-209

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(Doc. 63)
This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's April29,
20 15 Report and Recommendation ("R & R"), in which he recommended that the court
grant the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Dr. Keith Ivens,
Dr. Teresa Lanier, and lman Gonzalez (the "Individual CCA Defendants.") (Doc. 63.)
In their motion, the Individual CCA Defendants seek dismissal of the complaint for lack
of personal jurisdiction. It is uncontested that none of the Individual CCA Defendants
resides in Vermont and that each of them resided in Arizona during Robert Donald Hutt's
incarceration there. There is no evidence that any of the Individual CCA Defendants own
property in Vermont, and only Defendant Lanier has been to Vermont for a period of

approximately two days while on vacation. The Magistrate Judge concluded that
Defendant Corrections Corporation of America's contacts with Vermont cannot be
attributed to the Individual CCA Defendants. Neither party has filed an objection to the
R & R, and the time period to do so has expired.
A district judge must make a de novo determination ofthose portions of a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which an objection is made. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Cullen v. United States, 194 F.3d 401, 405 (2d
Cir. 1999). The district judge may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l);

accord Cullen, 194 F.3d at 405. A district judge, however, is not required to review the
factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of a report and
recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150 (1985).
Plaintiffs federal and state law claims arise out of the Individual CCA
Defendants' alleged failure to properly and timely diagnose and treat Mr. Hutt's latestage osteosarcoma while he was in the custody of the Vermont Department of
Corrections and housed at Corrections Corporation of America's Florence Correctional
Center in Florence, Arizona. In his twenty-eight page R & R, the Magistrate Judge
carefully reviewed the factual allegations and legal claims in both the complaint and the
motion to dismiss and ultimately recommended dismissal without prejudice of all claims
against the Individual CCA Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. This court
adopts the R & R and its recommendation in its entirety.

2

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R &
R as the court's Order and Opinion, and GRANTS the Individual CCA Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 63.)
SO ORDERED.

p.....

Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this

_jJ__ day of June, 2015.

~

Christina Reiss, Chief Judge
United States District Court

3