Rheaume v. Pallito et al
Filing
63
ORDER Adopting 58 Report and Recommendation denying as moot 47 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and denying 7 Motion to Appoint Counsel. A certificate of appealability is DENIED bec ause the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of denial of a federal right. Furthermore, it is certified that any appeal of this matter would not be taken in good faith, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Signed by Judge William K. Sessions III on 11/18/2015. (jam)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
Allen Rheaume,
Plaintiff,
v.
Andrew Pallito, Mark Potanas,
Cullen Bullard, Kris Goldstein,
Samantha Clarke, Kim Bushey,
Jim Gibson, Dale Crook,
Larry Martineau, Tammy Kennison,
and Brad Dunsmore,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
: File No. 2:15 CV 135
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
ORDER
The Report and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge was filed October 22, 2015.
Plaintiff’s
objections were filed November 12, 2015.
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); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1); Perez-Rubio v. Wyckoff, 718
F.Supp. 217, 227 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
The district judge may
"accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations."
Id.
After careful review of the file, the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation and the objections, this
Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendations in full.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Rheaume’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 47) is DENIED
as moot, Rheaume’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 6) is
DENIED for failure to show irreparable harm and Rheaume’s
Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 7) is DENIED for
failure to demonstrate a special reason for said appointment.
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b), a certificate of
appealability is DENIED because the petitioner has failed to
make a substantial showing of denial of a federal right.
Furthermore, the petitioner’s grounds for relief do not present
issues which are debatable among jurists of reasons, which
could have been resolved differently, or which deserve further
proceedings.
See e.g., Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3rd 878, 882-83
(8th Cir.) cert. denied, 513 U.S. 946 (1994); Sawyer v.
Collins, 986 F.2d 1493, 1497 (5th cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S.
933 (1993).
Furthermore, it is certified that any appeal of this
matter would not be taken in good faith, pursuant to
28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3).
Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this 18th
day of November, 2015.
/s/ William K. Sessions III
William K. Sessions III
District Court Judge
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?