Mathews v. Pallito et al

Filing 71

ORDER ADOPTING 70 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 63 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The court dismisses all of Plaintiff's claims, including his state law claims and those set forth in his 37 Amended Complaint without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 9/26/2014. (pac)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR1l0\4 St? 26 PK 4: 05
FOR THE
,,, Qy
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
"
_:_·-~---~v ~r,::;>UT'~ Cl··"·''•

James Mathews,
Plaintiff,
v.
Andrew Pallito, Correct Care
Solutions, Inc., Trudee Ettlinger,
and Lori Bull,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:12-cv-58

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
(Docs. 37, 63, 70)
This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's July 30,
2014 Report and Recommendation ("R & R"). Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with various provisions of state law. The Plaintiff claims
that Department of Corrections healthcare officials and others provided him with
improper medical care. (Doc. 37.) The Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. 63.) The Plaintiff opposes this motion. 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)(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 reviewed the factual record at length and
properly determined that Plaintiffs claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should be dismissed
and the court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law
claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The court agrees. It therefore ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge's R & R as the court's Order and Opinion, and GRANTS Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 63.) The court, however, dismisses all of
Plaintiffs claims, including his state law claims and those set forth in his Amended
Complaint (Doc. 37), WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Mitchell v. Lyons Prof'! Servs., Inc.,
708 F.3d 463, 467 (2d Cir. 2013) (dismissal with prejudice "should be used only in
extreme situations").

f-.

SO ORDERED.
Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this

2'

day of September, 2014.

--

Christina Reiss, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2