City of Almaty v. Ablyazov, 15-CY-5345 (AJN)(KHP). (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20180621e58
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN , District Judge . Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker's Report & Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court deny both Triadou SPY S.A.'s ("Triadou") request for clarification of the Court's Order of Attachment and the City of Almaty, Kazakhstan and BTA Bank's ("Kazakh Entities") request that the Court confirm that certain real property owned by Syracuse Center LLC is covered by the same Order of Attachment and enjoin Triadou's subsidiary
Summary: ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN , District Judge . Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker's Report & Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court deny both Triadou SPY S.A.'s ("Triadou") request for clarification of the Court's Order of Attachment and the City of Almaty, Kazakhstan and BTA Bank's ("Kazakh Entities") request that the Court confirm that certain real property owned by Syracuse Center LLC is covered by the same Order of Attachment and enjoin Triadou's subsidiary f..
More
ORDER
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker's Report & Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court deny both Triadou SPY S.A.'s ("Triadou") request for clarification of the Court's Order of Attachment and the City of Almaty, Kazakhstan and BTA Bank's ("Kazakh Entities") request that the Court confirm that certain real property owned by Syracuse Center LLC is covered by the same Order of Attachment and enjoin Triadou's subsidiary from executing a mortgage on the property. See Dkt. No. 706; see also Dkt. Nos. 634 &647.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties had until June 12, 2018 to file any objections to Judge Parker's R&R. When a magistrate judge issues findings or recommendations, the district court "may accept, reject, or modify [them] in whole or in par." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no party has filed objections to the magistrate's R&R, the Court reviews it only for clear error. See Gomez v. Brown, 655 F.Supp.2d 332, 341 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). "A decision is `clearly erroneous' when the reviewing Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Courtney v. Colvin, 13-CY-2884 (AJN), 2014 WL 129051, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2014).
The parties having filed no objections to the R&R, and the Court finding no clear error therein, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. The parties' requests are therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
