Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gulino v. Board of Education, 96-CV -8414 (KMW). (2020)

Court: District Court, S.D. New York Number: infdco20200218f07 Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 10, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 10, 2020
Summary: ORDER KIMBA M. WOOD , District Judge . On May 20, 2014, this case was referred to Special Master John Siffert pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(a)(1)(B) and this Court's inherent equitable powers and authority. (ECF Nos. 435, 524.) On January 30, 2020, Special Master Siffert filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending this Court adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Jose Santos, enter the Proposed Judgment submitted with the R&R, and certify the Pro
More

ORDER

On May 20, 2014, this case was referred to Special Master John Siffert pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(a)(1)(B) and this Court's inherent equitable powers and authority. (ECF Nos. 435, 524.) On January 30, 2020, Special Master Siffert filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending this Court adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Jose Santos, enter the Proposed Judgment submitted with the R&R, and certify the Proposed Judgment as final and appealable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). (ECF No. 4369.)

The parties agree that objections that have been preserved in the record do not need to be resubmitted to the Court in connection with this R&R. The parties further agree that the Court may adopt or reject the R&R on the basis of the arguments and objections to rulings contained in the record.

As set forth in the Second Amended Order of Appointment and consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(f), the Court reviews de nova all objections to conclusions of law and findings of fact made or recommended by the Special Master. (ECF No. 524.) Upon de nova review of the R&R, as well as the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions Law—and after reviewing the previous Interim R&Rs that this Court has already adopted—the Court adopts the Special Master's R&R in its entirety.

Accordingly, the Court will enter the Proposed Judgment. For the reasons set forth in the R&R, the Court holds there is no just reason for delay and certifies the judgment for Jose Santos final and appealable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer