Stern v. Colvin, 16 Civ. 4250 (LAP) (KHP). (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20180919714
Visitors: 17
Filed: Aug. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION LORETTA A. PRESKA , Senior United States District Judge . Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker's Report and Recommendation dated July 28, 2017 [dkt. no. 23] with respect to the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings [dkt. nos. 14, 17] ("R&R"). Any objections to the R&R were required to be filed within fourteen days, that is, by August 11, 2018. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). No objections were filed. The
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION LORETTA A. PRESKA , Senior United States District Judge . Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker's Report and Recommendation dated July 28, 2017 [dkt. no. 23] with respect to the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings [dkt. nos. 14, 17] ("R&R"). Any objections to the R&R were required to be filed within fourteen days, that is, by August 11, 2018. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). No objections were filed. The ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker's Report and Recommendation dated July 28, 2017 [dkt. no. 23] with respect to the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings [dkt. nos. 14, 17] ("R&R").
Any objections to the R&R were required to be filed within fourteen days, that is, by August 11, 2018. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). No objections were filed.
The district court must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made" and "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); see also Civ. L.R. 72-3(a) (requiring that any objections be accompanied by a motion for de novo determination). In absence of a timely objection, the Court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983). The Court has reviewed the record on its face and finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the R&R is accepted in its entirety, and the case is remanded to the Administrative Law Judge.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
