Henry v. Vermont Department of Corrections et al
Filing
22
OPINION AND ORDER Adopting 18 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation; granting 5 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Plaintiff's claims against Vermont Department of Corrections and Officer Jeremy Bradley in his official capacity are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 9/21/2016. (law)
U.S. DISTRICT C
&ISTPHCT Of VER
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
Ziti SEP 21 PH 2: 16
CLERI{
IY
JONATHANHENRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS and JEREMY BRADLEY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
SEPUT~td{
Case No. 2:16-cv-41
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(Docs. 5 & 18)
This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's August 2,
2016 Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc. 18), in which he recommended that
the court grant the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Vermont Department of
Corrections ("DOC") and former DOC Correctional Officer Jeremy Bradley in his
official capacity. (Doc. 5.) The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the court not
dismiss Plaintiff Jonathan Henry's claims against Defendant Bradley in his individual
capacity. On September 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to the R & R wherein he stated
he did not object to the court adopting the R & R because he intends to refile the
dismissed claims in Washington County Superior Court.
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)(1); 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).
Because Plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that his
Complaint against Defendant DOC and Defendant Bradley in his official capacity should
be dismissed, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge's conclusions and adopts the R & R
in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's
R & R (Doc. 18) as the court's Order and Opinion, and GRANTS Defendants' motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs claims against Defendant DOC and Defendant Bradley in his official
capacity for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim without
prejudice. (Doc. 5.)
SO ORDERED.
1
Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this
t-
? /day of September, 2016.
Ch~
nstma e1ss,
1e u ge
United States District Court
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?