From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ives v. Agastoni

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Jan 5, 2016
C.A. NO. 15-cv-30153-MAP (D. Mass. Jan. 5, 2016)

Summary

finding same, for judge's performance of "core judicial functions, including adjudicating disputes, weighing evidence, making factual findings, reaching legal conclusions, choosing sanctions, expounding reasons for decisions, presiding over courtroom sessions, accepting filings, and recording rulings"

Summary of this case from Zenon v. Guzman

Opinion

C.A. NO. 15-cv-30153-MAP

01-05-2016

TAMMY IVES, Plaintiff, v. JOHN AGASTONI, ET AL., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL
(Dkt. Nos. 2 & 9)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two judges of the Superior Court Department of the Massachusetts Trial Court and the Clerk of the Berkshire County Superior Court. The complaint was referred to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson for review of Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and for pretrial screening.

Following her review, on December 14, 2015, Judge Robertson issued her Report and Recommendation, to the effect that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) should be allowed. However, after completing a preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Judge Robertson also recommended that the complaint be dismissed based on res judicata, immunity, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The conclusion of the Report and Recommendation admonished the parties that objections to the Report and Recommendation would have to be filed within fourteen days. See Dkt. No. 9 at n.1. No opposition has been filed.

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, de novo, the court finds that it is entirely correct as a matter of law and that Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ADOPTS Judge Robertson's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9). Based upon this, the complaint is ordered DISMISSED. This case may now be closed.

It is So Ordered.

/s/ Michael A. Ponsor

MICHAEL A. PONSOR

U. S. District Judge


Summaries of

Ives v. Agastoni

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Jan 5, 2016
C.A. NO. 15-cv-30153-MAP (D. Mass. Jan. 5, 2016)

finding same, for judge's performance of "core judicial functions, including adjudicating disputes, weighing evidence, making factual findings, reaching legal conclusions, choosing sanctions, expounding reasons for decisions, presiding over courtroom sessions, accepting filings, and recording rulings"

Summary of this case from Zenon v. Guzman
Case details for

Ives v. Agastoni

Case Details

Full title:TAMMY IVES, Plaintiff, v. JOHN AGASTONI, ET AL., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Date published: Jan 5, 2016

Citations

C.A. NO. 15-cv-30153-MAP (D. Mass. Jan. 5, 2016)

Citing Cases

Zenon v. Guzman

This conclusion is supported by an abundance of case-law. See Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133…

Pierre v. Cristello

"Absolute immunity applies to 'judges performing judicial acts within their jurisdiction,' and the protection…