ANTROBUS v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 11-cv-5434 (CBA) (LB). (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. New York
Number: infdco20140416c44
Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 24, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM & ORDER CAROL BAGLEY AMON, District Judge. On September 9, 2013, Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that defendants' motion to dismiss should be granted in part and denied in part. On October 10, 2013, the Court received a submission from prose plaintiff Andre Antrobus objecting to Magistrate Judge Bloom's R&R. Antrobus does not appear to object to Magistrate Judge Bloom's application of the law, but states his concern that he will no
Summary: MEMORANDUM & ORDER CAROL BAGLEY AMON, District Judge. On September 9, 2013, Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that defendants' motion to dismiss should be granted in part and denied in part. On October 10, 2013, the Court received a submission from prose plaintiff Andre Antrobus objecting to Magistrate Judge Bloom's R&R. Antrobus does not appear to object to Magistrate Judge Bloom's application of the law, but states his concern that he will not..
More
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
CAROL BAGLEY AMON, District Judge.
On September 9, 2013, Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that defendants' motion to dismiss should be granted in part and denied in part. On October 10, 2013, the Court received a submission from prose plaintiff Andre Antrobus objecting to Magistrate Judge Bloom's R&R. Antrobus does not appear to object to Magistrate Judge Bloom's application of the law, but states his concern that he will not be able to testifY as to certain events that he believes serves as a "backbone or a foundation to show probabl[e] cause" for his claims. Defendants did not file objections. Having reviewed de novo those parts of the R&R to which Antrobus has objected, Arista Records. LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010), the Court now adopts the R&R as the Decision and Order of this Court. Accordingly, the defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
