Brady v. Chittenden Correctional Facility
Filing
12
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 7 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff is hereby granted thirty (30) days to file an Amended Complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 11/27/2012. (pac)
U.S. DiSTRi "r
DISTRICT
V
FllF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
DARREN BRADY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHITTENDEN CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2012 NOV 27 PM ,: 39
Case No.5: 12-cv-41
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(Docs. 7, 10)
This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's October
18,2012 Report and Recommendation (R & R) regarding a motion to dismiss filed by
Defendant. Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff Darren Brady's claims for
violations of his constitutional rights and his rights under the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990. Neither party has objected to the R & R, and the deadline for doing so has
expired. Plaintiff has, however, submitted an "Amendment to Complaint and Discovery
Request", which are not ripe, and which shall be addressed in a separate Order.
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.
ClV. 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 twelve page R & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the factual
record and the motion before the court. He determined that Plaintiffs claims of
violations of his constitutional rights and his rights under the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 should be dismissed. He further determined that Plaintiff should be
permitted to amend his complaint if he so chooses.
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, and GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is hereby
GRANTED thirty (30) days to file an Amended Complaint. He has complied with the
deadline by filing an "Amendment to Complaint" on November 20,2012.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont,
2
this';>7~ay of November, 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?