Rheaume v. Pallito et al

Filing 166

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 165 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's 159 MOTION for Relief from 148 Judgment and MOTION for a Replacement Copy of Civil Case File. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 6/23/2014. (pac)

u.s. DiS
DISTRICT 0
;: t

).-

t

~'+-

Ii

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

Allen Rheaume,
Plaintiff,

v.
Andrew Pallito, Susan Onderwyzer,
Jackie Kotkin, David Peebles,
Michele Young, Cullen Bullard,
Keith Talon, Krista Prior,
Marshall Rich, Tom Rowden,
Sandra Olberg, Tammy Kennison,
Georgia Cummings, Jerri Brouillette,
Tammy Smith, Steve Hoke,
Anita Carbonell, Lynn Roberto,
Sue Random Kelly, Edward Holtrop,
and Heather Ward,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:11-cv-72

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
(Doc. 159, 165)
This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's April 25,
2014 Report and Recommendation ("R & R"). Plaintiff has filed a motion for relief from
judgment and for a replacement copy of the civil case file. (Doc. 159.) Neither party has
objected to the R & R, and the deadline for doing so has expired.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff Allen Rheaume, a Vermont inmate, seeks
compensatory damages in the amount of $250,000, as well as $250,000 in punitive
damages "against each and every defendant". (Doc. 55 at 9.) Plaintiff alleges violation
of the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments, and violations of the Vermont constitution
and statutory law. Mr. Rheaume more specifically alleges that he was classified as a

high-risk sex offender without proper notice or due process; that his release on
conditional reentry was arbitrarily delayed; that his programming requirements violate
Vermont Department of Corrections policies; and that Defendants denied him a "correct
treatment program" and a liberty interest in parole. (Doc. 55 at 8,

~

32.) While Mr.

Rheaume was in lock down and segregation, Magistrate Judge Conroy issued an R & R
in which he recommended that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied and
Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment be granted. (Doc. 145 at 22.) Mr.
Rheaume's understanding at that time was that he would be in segregation for another
four months and that he would not be able to object to the R & R. (Doc. 159-2 at 3.) He
then filed a motion to dismiss his claims. (Doc. 146.) The court entered judgment
dismissing the case. (Doc. 148.) Mr. Rheaume subsequently filed a motion for relief
from judgment and for a "replacement copy" of the court's civil case file. (Doc. 159.)
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,
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 R & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the record and properly
determined that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief from the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b). The court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation well-reasoned. As the
Magistrate Judge points out, since this case was dismissed without prejudice, Mr.
Rheaume may refile his claim should he desire to do so. The court makes no ruling at
2

this time regarding whether the applicable statute of limitations has expired. Mr.
Rheaume also seeks a "replacement copy" of his civil case file. Upon request, he may
obtain copies of specific documents free of charge or may request a waiver of PACER
fees and obtain the documents electronically.
For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's
R & R as the court's Order and Opinion, and DENIES in part and GRANTS in part
Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment and motion for a replacement copy of civil his
case file. (Doc. 159.)
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this ..2.Jt''iiay of June, 2014.

Christina Reiss, Chief Judge

United States District Court

3