Wool v. Menard
OPINION AND ORDER Adopting 115 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Denying 33 Plaintiff's Motion for Permanent Injunctive Relief, and Dismissing Case. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 3/13/2017. (pac)
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
LISA MENARD, Commissioner of Vermont
Department of Corrections
201lHAR 13 PH 2: 26
Case No. 2:16-cv-120
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND DISMISSING CASE
(Docs. 33 & 115)
This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's February
14, 2017 Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc. 115), in which he recommended
that the court deny Plaintiff Kirk Wool's motion for permanent injunctive relief enjoining
Defendant Lisa Menard from using allegedly false records created by Dr. Claire Gilligan.
(Doc. 33.) On February 27,2017, Plaintiff filed a response in which he stated that he
"rna[ d]e no objections" to the R & R. (Doc. 117 at 1.) To his credit, Plaintiff admits that
he did not file a timely Amended Complaint because any such complaint would "be
frivolous in light of the fact [he] had rescinded all federal claims." !d.
Plaintiff is self-represented. Defendant is represented by Assistant Attorney
General Emily A. Carr.
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)(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,
Because Plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the
court should deny his motion on the grounds that he asserts no remaining federal claims
against Defendant, and because he has failed to establish irreparable harm if the requested
relief is denied, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge's conclusions and adopts the R & R
in its entirety. In addition, as Plaintiff has rescinded his federal claims and declined to
file an Amended Complaint, this case must be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's
R & R (Doc. 115) and DENIES Plaintiffs motion for permanent injunctive relief (Doc.
33) and DISMISSES this case.
Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this / d day of March, 2017.
Christina Reiss, Chief Judge
United States District Court
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?