Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mathews v. Pallito

United States District Court, D. Vermont

September 26, 2014

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

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Docs. 37, 63, 70)

CHRISTINA REISS, Chief Judge.

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)(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 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.