Johnson v. Davis et al

Filing 31

ENTRY ORDER Adopting Magistrate Judge's 27 Report and Recommendation granting 22 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 9/10/2015. (pac)

U.S. L!i :, I" i ::T COURT
DISTRICT OF \IEfn'10NT
;:.~· ~ 1~·' . :.:~ [J

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
EDWARD JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

v.
CARL DAVIS, MARCEL COTE,
and MICHAEL EVERSOLE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2015 SEP I 0 PH 12: 51

Case No. 2:14-cv-222

ENTRY ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(Docs. 22, 27)
This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's May 7,
20 15 Report and Recommendation ("R & R"), in which he recommended that the court
grant the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Carl Davis, Marcel Cote, and Michael
Eversole (collectively, "Defendants"). (Doc. 27.) In their motion, Defendants seek
dismissal ofPlaintiffEdward Johnson's complaint based on the doctrine of res judicata.
(Doc. 22.) Plaintiffs claims are based on Defendants' purported failure to review certain
video recordings of an incident in which Plaintiff allegedly tampered with a laundry room
lock, Defendants' subsequent disciplinary proceedings based on that incident, and the
alleged due process violations that occurred in those proceedings.
The Magistrate Judge concluded that res judicata bars Plaintiffs litigation in this
matter based on the final decision issued by the Vermont Superior Court in Johnson v.
Pallito, Docket No. 29-1-13 Oscv, and because Plaintiffs current action involves the
same subject matter that he raised in the state court action as well as the same parties or
parties in privity to those in Plaintiffs state court action. In addition, the Magistrate
Judge determined that Plaintiff litigated or could have litigated his due process claims in

the underlying state court case. Neither party has filed an objection to the R & R, and the
time period to do so has expired. 1
A district judge must make a de novo determination of those 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)(1);
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).
In his nine pageR & 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 of all claims against Defendants based on res judicata.
This court finds the Magistrate Judge's decision well-reasoned and adopts the R & Rand
its recommendation in its entirety.
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R &
R as the court's Order and Opinion (Doc. 27), and GRANTS Defendants' motion to
dismiss. (Doc. 22.)

Christina Reiss, Chief Judge
United States District Court

1

Plaintiff appealed the Magistrate Judge's R & Ron May 21,2015, which was sent to the
Second Circuit on June 9, 2015. Plaintiffs appeal was dismissed on August 4, 2015. Based on
the issuance of the mandate on August 4, 2015, the court ordered objections to the R & R to be
filed by September 8, 2015.
2