Rheaume v. Pallito et al

Filing 72

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 67 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION denying 57 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Ordering Defendants to File a Response to 62 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel by January 21, 2013. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 12/20/2012. (pac)

U.S. DIS 'i­

DISTRICT

FiL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2012 DEC 20 PM 4:
FOR THE
CLERK
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

II

BY _____~~C~<~.~____
DEPUTY CLERK

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

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

(Docs. 57, 62 and 67)
This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's
November 15,2012 Report and Recommendation (R & R) in regards to two motions
filed by the parties. Defendants, who are officials at the Vermont Department of
Corrections, have moved to dismiss Plaintiff Allen Rheaume's claims for violations of
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause. Mr. Rheaume,
a self-represented Vermont inmate, has moved to Compel Discovery. 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 ofa
magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which an objection is made. FED. R.

CIY. 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 modity, 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 satisty 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 sixteen page R & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the factual
record and the two motions before the court. He determined that the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss should be denied. He further ordered that Defendants file a response to Mr.
Rheaume's Motion to Compel.
The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions. For the foregoing
reasons, the court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R & R as the court's Order
and Opinion, DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and ORDERS Defendants to file
a response to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel by January 21,2013.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this

2-o'!y of December, 2012.

Christina Reiss, Chief Judge

United States District Court

2