CONCORD FARMS, INC. v. SUN EAST TRADING CORP., 2012 Civ. 2302 (AMD)(MDG). (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. New York
Number: infdco20160105990
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 04, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ANN M. DONNELLY , District Judge . This action concerns the sale of produce under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. 499a et seq . In a Report and Recommendation issued on November 3, 2015, Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go recommended that the Court strike the Answer of Defendant Sun East Trading Corp. and enter default against it, because the corporation did not retain new counsel. Judge Go also recommended that the case caption be amended to confor
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ANN M. DONNELLY , District Judge . This action concerns the sale of produce under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. 499a et seq . In a Report and Recommendation issued on November 3, 2015, Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go recommended that the Court strike the Answer of Defendant Sun East Trading Corp. and enter default against it, because the corporation did not retain new counsel. Judge Go also recommended that the case caption be amended to conform..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ANN M. DONNELLY, District Judge.
This action concerns the sale of produce under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. §499a et seq. In a Report and Recommendation issued on November 3, 2015, Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go recommended that the Court strike the Answer of Defendant Sun East Trading Corp. and enter default against it, because the corporation did not retain new counsel. Judge Go also recommended that the case caption be amended to conform to the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. No party has objected to Judge Go's Report and Recommendation within the time prescribed by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).
In reviewing an R&R, a district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Where, as here, no party has objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation, "a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Urena v. New York, 160 F.Supp.2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)).
Source: Leagle
