Rosado v. Schneiderman, 9:13-cv-1133 (GLS/ATB). (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. New York
Number: infdco20140619b50
Visitors: 28
Filed: Jun. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER GARY L. SHARPE, Chief District Judge. The above-captioned matter comes to this court following a Report-Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter, duly filed April 29, 2014. Following fourteen days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the file, including any and all objections filed by the parties herein. No objections having been filed 1 , and the court having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation for clear error, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report
Summary: ORDER GARY L. SHARPE, Chief District Judge. The above-captioned matter comes to this court following a Report-Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter, duly filed April 29, 2014. Following fourteen days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the file, including any and all objections filed by the parties herein. No objections having been filed 1 , and the court having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation for clear error, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report-..
More
ORDER
GARY L. SHARPE, Chief District Judge.
The above-captioned matter comes to this court following a Report-Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter, duly filed April 29, 2014. Following fourteen days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the file, including any and all objections filed by the parties herein.
No objections having been filed1, and the court having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation for clear error, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter filed April 29, 2014 (Dkt. No. 16) is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and it is further
ORDERED that the defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 6) is GRANTED, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case and provide a copy of this Order to the parties in accordance to the local rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. On May 13, 2014, the plaintiff filed a letter as an objection to the Report-Recommendation and requesting instructions on how to proceed with this case. (Dkt. No. 17). The court issued a text only order advising plaintiff that the Court is prohibited from giving him legal advice. Furthermore, the court granted the plaintiff an extension of time until June 16, 2014 to file written objections which specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which it has an objection and the basis for the objection. Despite the passage of the due date, the plaintiff has not filed any objections in compliance with the court's order.
Source: Leagle
