Filed: Apr. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 14, 2016
Summary: ORDER NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS , District Judge . On January 15, 2016, Plaintiff James Bradley filed a pro se motion seeking leave to further amend his complaint. (Mot. to Amend (Dkt. 38).) On March 16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that the court deny Plaintiff's motion to amend, on the ground that amendment would be futile. (R&R (Dkt. 44).) No party has objected to Judge Levy's R&R, and the time to do so has passed. See Fed
Summary: ORDER NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS , District Judge . On January 15, 2016, Plaintiff James Bradley filed a pro se motion seeking leave to further amend his complaint. (Mot. to Amend (Dkt. 38).) On March 16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that the court deny Plaintiff's motion to amend, on the ground that amendment would be futile. (R&R (Dkt. 44).) No party has objected to Judge Levy's R&R, and the time to do so has passed. See Fed...
More
ORDER
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, District Judge.
On January 15, 2016, Plaintiff James Bradley filed a pro se motion seeking leave to further amend his complaint. (Mot. to Amend (Dkt. 38).) On March 16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that the court deny Plaintiff's motion to amend, on the ground that amendment would be futile. (R&R (Dkt. 44).)
No party has objected to Judge Levy's R&R, and the time to do so has passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). (See also R&R at 4 ("Any objections to this [R&R] must be filed within fourteen (14) days . . . in order to preserve appellate review.").) Therefore, the court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Gesualdi v. Mack Excavation & Trailer Serv., Inc., No. 09-CV-2502 (KAM) (JO), 2010 WL 985294, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2010); La Torres v. Walker, 216 F.Supp.2d 157, 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS IN FULL the R&R and, accordingly, DENIES Plaintiff's motion to amend the Complaint. See Porter v. Potter, 219 F. App'x 112 (2d Cir. 2007) (summary order).
SO ORDERED.
