Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

PERI FORMWORK SYSTEMS, INC. v. VESTA 50, LLC, 10-CV-4773 (SJ) (JO). (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. New York Number: infdco20130404854 Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 29, 2013
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION STERLING JOHNSON, Jr., District Judge. Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("Report") prepared by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein. Judge Orenstein issued the Report on March 11, 2013, and provided the parties with the requisite amount of time to file any objections. Neither party filed any objections to the Report. For the reasons stated herein, this Court affirms and adopts the Report in its entirety. A district court judge may
More

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

STERLING JOHNSON, Jr., District Judge.

Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("Report") prepared by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein. Judge Orenstein issued the Report on March 11, 2013, and provided the parties with the requisite amount of time to file any objections. Neither party filed any objections to the Report. For the reasons stated herein, this Court affirms and adopts the Report in its entirety.

A district court judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine certain motions pending before the Court and to submit to the Court proposed findings of fact and a recommendation as to the disposition of the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 10 days of service of the recommendation, any party may file written objections to the magistrate's report. See Id. Upon de novo review of those portions of the record to which objections were made, the district court judge may affirm or reject the recommendations. See Id.

The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal this Court's Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Small v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).

In this case, objections to Magistrate Judge Orenstein's recommendations were due on March 28, 2013. No objections to the Report were filed with this Court. Upon review of the recommendations, this Court adopts and affirms Magistrate Judge Orenstein's Report in its entirety.

SO ORDERED.

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