From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

BAIN v. COTTON

United States District Court, D. Vermont
Jun 12, 2009
File No. 2:06 CV 217 (D. Vt. Jun. 12, 2009)

Summary

adopting report and recommendation

Summary of this case from Chinnici v. Town of Bennington

Opinion

File No. 2:06 CV 217.

June 12, 2009


ORDER


The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed May 11, 2009. Defendant Cote's objections were filed May 14, 2009, Defendant Cotton's objections were filed on May 22, 2009 and Plaintiff's response to said objections were filed on June 4, 2009.

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); Perez-Rubio v. Wyckoff, 718 F.Supp. 217, 227 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). The district judge may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Id.

After careful review of the file, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and the objections, this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendations in full.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Cotton's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Paper 113) is DENIED, that defendant Cote's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim is GRANTED, and that the motion (Paper 111) is otherwise DENIED. The defendants' joint motion to strike the amended complaint (Paper 114) is GRANTED and Paper 112 is STRICKEN.

In addition, Cotton's motion for leave to file a surreply (Paper 125) is GRANTED and Cote's motion to strike Plaintiff's unauthorized replay memorandum (Paper 126) is DENIED. The defendants' motion to enjoin further filings (Paper 127) and Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Paper 130) are DENIED.


Summaries of

BAIN v. COTTON

United States District Court, D. Vermont
Jun 12, 2009
File No. 2:06 CV 217 (D. Vt. Jun. 12, 2009)

adopting report and recommendation

Summary of this case from Chinnici v. Town of Bennington

explaining that the facts of the plaintiff's case, which centered "on specific contacts with a few prison health care providers," were "common in the prison setting," and the court saw "no special complexities, either legal or factual, that entitle [the plaintiff] to appointed counsel"

Summary of this case from Griggs v. Schmauss

suffering severe chronic pain is sufficient to allege physical injury

Summary of this case from McAdoo v. Martin

acknowledging that Vermont's statutory tolling provision applies to inmates bringing suit in federal court pursuant to § 1983

Summary of this case from Beaupre v. O'Connor
Case details for

BAIN v. COTTON

Case Details

Full title:Stephen Bain, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Paul Cotton, Steven Gold, Robert Hofmann…

Court:United States District Court, D. Vermont

Date published: Jun 12, 2009

Citations

File No. 2:06 CV 217 (D. Vt. Jun. 12, 2009)

Citing Cases

Patient a v. Vermont

Patient A's second cause of action thus "merely recloak[s] an Eighth Amendment claim as a Fourteenth…

McAdoo v. Martin

h County, Mississippi, 351 F.3d 626, 630-31 (5th Cir. 2003)(nausea and vomiting caused by raw sewage on floor…