-jmc Barber v. Pallito, No. 5:2010cv00255 - Document 22 (D. Vt. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. This case hereby dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 2/10/2012. (pam)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
u.s. DISTfiJGT COURT DISTRICT OF VE~HOfi'r . ' I =" t: FI," I, ¢ ¢ -' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT 20'2 FEB 10 PH f: 17 CLERJ( ay_ _...:-;-,::.-_.,,-........_ _ PM Of PUTY eLFlO'; KENNETH BARBER, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW PALLITO, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 5:10-cv-255 OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Docs. 20 & 21) This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's December 29,2011 Report and Recommendation ("R & R") in the above-captioned matter (Doc. 21). Neither party has objected to the R & R, and the deadline for doing so has expired. Plaintiff, Kenneth Barber, is represented by T. Lamar Enzor, Esq. Defendant, Andrew Pallito, Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections, is represented by William A. MacIlwaine, Esq. and Samuel Hoar, Jr., Esq. 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 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 fourteen page R & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the factual record and recommended that Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 20) be granted and the case be dismissed. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was unopposed. The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion and hereby ADOPTS the R & R as the Opinion and Order of this court. The court GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 20) and hereby ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this JDIt-- day of February, lsi Christina Reiss Christina Reiss, Chief Judge United States District Court 2 2012.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
