Faham v. Pallito
Filing
30
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 29 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 28 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, dismissing without prejudice 24 , 25 Plaintiff's Amended Petition, and denying as moot 27 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 11/5/2013. (pac)
U.S. DiST'i~!~
DlSTRICi'
CCU~-:
Gf.::::'i'{j
.
F ~ '- ':
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
ISAAC FAHAM,
Petitioner,
v.
ANDREW PALLITO, Commissioner,
Vermont Department of Corrections,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
20n NOV -5 PM 2: 25
Case No. 5:12-cv-212
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(Docs. 24, 25, 27, 28 & 29)
This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's
September 16, 2013 Report and Recommendation ("R & R") in the above-captioned
matter (Doc. 29). 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 FJd 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 this action, Petitioner Isaac Faham seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. He concedes that he has appealed his conviction to the Vermont Supreme
Court which affirmed it. See State v. Faham, 2011 VT 55, 190 Vt. 524,21 A.3d 701. In
doing so, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded that Petitioner had failed to preserve his
challenge to the sufficiency of evidence. Petitioner has since moved for post-conviction
relief ("PCR") based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner's PCR proceeding
is still pending and appears to be awaiting a decision by the Vermont Supreme Court.
In his seven page R & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the factual and
procedural record and recommended that Respondent's motion to dismiss which was
styled as a "Response to Petitioner's Amended Petition" (Doc. 28) be granted; Plaintiffs
Amended Petition (Docs. 24, 25) be dismissed without prejudice; and Plaintiffs motion
for appointment of counsel (Doc. 27) be denied as moot. The Magistrate Judge reasoned
that Petitioner had failed to exhaust his remedies with regard to his ineffective assistance
of counsel claim. The court further agrees that this court has either previously addressed
Petitioner's remaining claims or they are procedurally barred. Because the court agrees
with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions and recommendations, the court hereby
ADOPTS the R & R as the Opinion and Order of the court.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 28) is hereby
GRANTED; Plaintiffs Amended Petition (Docs. 24, 25) is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 27) is
hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
2
SO ORDERED.
."...
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this ~ day of November, 2013.
Christina Reiss, Chief Judge
United States District Court
3
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?