Many v. Vermont Department of Corrections

D. Vermont

Many v. Vermont Department of Corrections

DecidedJanuary 8, 2020

Docket2:19-cv-00042

StatusUnknown

This text of Many v. Vermont Department of Corrections (Many v. Vermont Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Many v. Vermont Department of Corrections, (D. Vt. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT Joshua Many, : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil No. 2:19 CV 42 : Vermont Department of : Corrections and Centurion : Healthcare, : Defendants. : ORDER The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed November 13, 2019 (Doc. 14). After careful review of the file and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, no objections having been filed by any party, this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendations in full for the reasons stated in the Report. The defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 10), is GRANTED, and that all claims alleged in Many’s complaint (Doc. 6) are DISMISSED. Many’s request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 6) is DENIED. It is further ordered that counsel for defendants be ordered to release to Many all reports regarding his medical treatment to assist Many in ascertaining the identities of all individuals involved in Many’s medical treatment for the period of July 2017 to January 2019. This assistance must be rendered within 30 days of this order. Many may then file an Amended Complaint no later than 30 days after receiving the identifying information. Should Many elect not to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days after receiving the identifying information, this case will be closed. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b), a certificate of appealability is DENIED because the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of denial of a federal right. Furthermore, the petitioner’s grounds for relief do not present issues which are debatable among jurists of reasons, which could have been resolved differently, or which deserve further proceedings. See e.g., Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3rd 878, 882-83 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 513 U.S. 946 (1994); Sawyer v. Collins, 986 F.2d 1493, 1497 (5th cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 933 (1993). Furthermore, it is certified that any appeal of this matter would not be taken in good faith, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this 8th day of January, 2020.

/s/ William K. Sessions III William K. Sessions III District Court Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT Joshua Many, : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil No. 2:19 CV 42 : Vermont Department of : Corrections and Centurion : Healthcare, : Defendants. : ORDER The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed November 13, 2019 (Doc. 14). After careful review of the file and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, no objections having been filed by any party, this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendations in full for the reasons stated in the Report. The defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 10), is GRANTED, and that all claims alleged in Many’s complaint (Doc. 6) are DISMISSED. Many’s request for appointment of counsel (Doc. 6) is DENIED. It is further ordered that counsel for defendants be ordered to release to Many all reports regarding his medical treatment to assist Many in ascertaining the identities of all individuals involved in Many’s medical treatment for the period of July 2017 to January 2019. This assistance must be rendered within 30 days of this order. Many may then file an Amended Complaint no later than 30 days after receiving the identifying information. Should Many elect not to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days after receiving the identifying information, this case will be closed. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b), a certificate of appealability is DENIED because the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of denial of a federal right. Furthermore, the petitioner’s grounds for relief do not present issues which are debatable among jurists of reasons, which could have been resolved differently, or which deserve further proceedings. See e.g., Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3rd 878, 882-83 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 513 U.S. 946 (1994); Sawyer v. Collins, 986 F.2d 1493, 1497 (5th cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 933 (1993). Furthermore, it is certified that any appeal of this matter would not be taken in good faith, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this 8th day of January, 2020.

/s/ William K. Sessions III William K. Sessions III District Court Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Many v. Vermont Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/many-v-vermont-department-of-corrections-vtd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack