Barber v. Pallito
Filing
22
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. This case hereby dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 2/10/2012. (pam)
u.s. DISTfiJGT COURT
DISTRICT OF VE~HOfi'r
. ' I =" t:
FI," I,•• -'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
20'2 FEB 10 PH f: 17
CLERJ(
ay_ _...:-;-,::.-_.,,-........_ _
PM
Of PUTY eLFlO';
KENNETH BARBER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW PALLITO,
Commissioner, Vermont
Department of Corrections,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 5:10-cv-255
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(Docs. 20 & 21)
This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's
December 29,2011 Report and Recommendation ("R & R") in the above-captioned
matter (Doc. 21). Neither party has objected to the R & R, and the deadline for doing so
has expired. Plaintiff, Kenneth Barber, is represented by T. Lamar Enzor, Esq.
Defendant, Andrew Pallito, Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections, is
represented by William A. MacIlwaine, Esq. and Samuel Hoar, Jr., Esq.
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); 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). When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there
is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. See
Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196,206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied,
419 U.S. 879 (1974).
In his fourteen page R & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the factual
record and recommended that Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 20) be
granted and the case be dismissed. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was
unopposed.
The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion and hereby ADOPTS the
R & R as the Opinion and Order of this court. The court GRANTS Defendant's motion
for summary judgment (Doc. 20) and hereby ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this
JDIt-- day of February,
lsi Christina Reiss
Christina Reiss, Chief Judge
United States District Court
2
2012.
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?