Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Berkley v. Ware, 9:16-CV-1326 (LEK/CFH). (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. New York Number: infdco20180807g68 Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2018
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE E. KAHN , District Judge . I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court following a report-recommendation filed on July 6, 2018, by the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3 Dkt. No. 24 ("Report-Recommendation"). II. LEGAL STANDARD Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to
More

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court following a report-recommendation filed on July 6, 2018, by the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3 Dkt. No. 24 ("Report-Recommendation").

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). If no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F.Supp.2d 301, 306-07, 306 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Orange, 748 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-CV-13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) ("[E]ven a pro se party's objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate's proposal, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a prior argument."). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." § 636(b). Otherwise, a court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Id.

III. DISCUSSION

No objections were filed in the allotted time period. Docket. Thus, the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 24) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant's summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 21) is GRANTED and the case is dismissed; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS 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