Carpenter v. Vermont Department of Corrections et al, No. 2:2021cv00111 - Document 11 (D. Vt. 2022)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation, granting 6 Motion to Dismiss; dismissing 1 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The court denies Petitioner a certificate of appealability in this matter because Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Judge Christina Reiss on 8/23/2022. (sjl)

Download PDF
Carpenter v. Vermont Department of Corrections et al Doc. 11 Case 2:21-cv-00111-cr-kjd Document 11 Filed 08/23/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT MICHAEL L. CARPENTER, Petitioner, V. VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and BENNINGTON DISTRICT COURT, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2122 AUG 23 AH II: 46 Case No. 2:21-cv-l l l OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Docs. 1, 6, & 10) This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's July 27, 2022 Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc. 10), in which the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court grant the motion to dismiss self-represented Petitioner Michael L. Carpenter's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Respondents Vermont Department of Corrections ("DOC") and Bennington District Court. (Docs. 1 & 6.) No party has filed an objection to the R & R, and the time period to do so has expired. Plaintiff is self-represented. Respondents are represented by Assistant Attorney General Jared C. Bianchi. 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, Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00111-cr-kjd Document 11 Filed 08/23/22 Page 2 of 2 194 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 reports and recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In his twenty-two-page R & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the factual allegations, procedural history, potential causes of action, and requests for relief set forth in Petitioner's petition and correctly recommended dismissal because the petition was untimely, equitable tolling does not apply, and it would not constitute a miscarriage of justice to deny the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(l)(A), (B), (D). The court agrees with this well-reasoned conclusion and thus does not address the additional bases for dismissal the Magistrate Judge recommended. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R & R (Doc. 10) as the court's Opinion and Order and GRANTS Respondents' motion to dismiss. (Doc. 6.) Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(l) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the court DENIES Petitioner a certificate of appealability in this matter because Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. SO ORDERED. Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this ~ ;lJ day of August, 2022. Christina Reiss, District Judge United States District Court 2

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.