Hackett v. Zhou et al
Filing
13
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 11 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting Defendants' 9 Motion to Dismiss, and dismissing Plaintiff's 4 , 5 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 12/20/2012. (pac)
U.S. DI5Tt:i
DISTRICT (]
~!
, I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
2012 DEC 20
PM~:
CLERK
BY
~v
CfPHTY ClERI{
Thomas J. Hackett,
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
)
)
)
Xu Zhou; The State of Vermont;
Chittenden Criminal Division;
William H. Sorrell, Vermont Attorney
G~cr~,
Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-158
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(Docs. 4, 5, 9 and 11)
This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's
November 19,2012 Report and Recommendation ("R & R") in regards to the Plaintiffs
Petition and Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Defendants have moved to
dismiss the Petition. Plaintiff has filed a reply to the R & R in a timely manner which the
court will treat as an objection. Plaintiffs fifteen-page objection recites the details of his
various family court and criminal case proceedings as well of events occurring in
Plaintiffs marriage and during his child-rearing of his daughters. The objection includes
exhibits containing apparent web pages setting forth legal quotations (primarily
addressing a court's jurisdiction) and a legal brief apparently filed by a self-represented
defendant in an Illinois state court criminal proceeding challenging the state court's
jurisdiction on a number of grounds. Plaintiff requests the court to: "Please acquit,
vacate, expunge, strike, my and all Vermont criminal, family, and probate actions of the
last four years, such that my second amendment right of self defense be restored by
It
2013." (Doc. 12 at 15.) Plaintiff does not point to any error made by the Magistrate
Judge in recommending dismissal of his Petition, nor does he address any aspect of the R
& R with which he objects.
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.
Cry. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I); 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)(I); accord
Cullen, 194 FJd 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 five page R & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the factual record
and the legal issues before the court. The Magistrate Judge determined that the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss should be granted on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,46
(1971) abstention grounds. He further recommended that Plaintiff s Petition be
dismissed on the grounds that to grant relief would interfere with an ongoing state
criminal prosecution and because Plaintiff had not satisfied 28 U.S.C. § 2254's
exhaustion requirements.
The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions and Plaintiffhas
provided no reason for refusing to adopt them as the Opinion and Order of this court.
For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's
R & R as the court's Order and Opinion, GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and
DISMISSES the Plaintiffs Petition.
2
SO ORDERED.
1k
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this
2/) day of December, 2012.
Christina Reiss, Chief Judge
United States District Court
3
_
... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--1
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?