Rheaume v. Pallito et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING 30 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION denying 27 Petitioner's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 8/31/2011. (pam)

U.S. DIST.RICT COURT
DISTRiCT Of VEIH10NT

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
)
)
Petitioner,
)

)

v.
)
)
ANDREWPALLITO, SUSAN
)
ONDERWYZER, JACKIE KOTKIN, )
DAVID PEEBLES, MICHELE
)
YOUNG, CULLEN BULLARD,
)
KEITH TALLON, KRISTA PRIOR,
)
MARSHALL RICH, TOM ROWDEN, )
SANDRA OLBERG, TAMMY
)
KENNISON, GEORGIA CUMMINGS, )
JERRI BROUILLETTE, TAMMY
)
SMITH, STEVE HOKE, ANITA
)
CARBONELL, LYNN ROBERTO,
)
SUE RANSON KELLY, EDWARD
)
HOLTROP, and HEATHER WARD,
)
)

Defendants.
)

2011 AUG 31 AM 9: 34

ALLEN RHEAUME,

CLERK

~DErlJT Y CLERI<

Case No. 5:11-cv-72

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

(Docs. 27 & 30)

This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's July 8,
2011 Report and Recommendation ("R & R") in the above-captioned matter, wherein the
Magistrate Judge recommended the court deny Petitioner's motion for a temporary
restraining order. (Docs. 27 & 30.) Neither party has objected to the R & R, and the
deadline for doing so has expired.
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).
After careful review of the file and the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's findings and
recommendation in full. The Magistrate Judge properly determined that Petitioner has
failed to satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), because he did not file an
affidavit or verified complaint "clearly" showing "that immediate and irreparable injury,
loss, or damage will result" to him before the adverse party can be heard. Additionally,
Petitioner failed to submit certification as to any efforts to provide notice to the adverse
party, and the reasons notice should not be required. Accordingly, the court hereby
DENIES Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order.
SO ORDERED.
5)Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this ~ day of August, 2011.

Ch~dge

United States District Court

2