Filed: Jun. 29, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 29, 2018
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE J. VILARDO , District Judge . On April 21, 2017, the plaintiff commenced this action. Docket Item 1. On September 13, 2017, this Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). Docket Item 8. On December 28, 2017, the plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, to remand for further proceedings, Docket Item 14; on February 22, `, the defendant responded and moved for judgmen
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE J. VILARDO , District Judge . On April 21, 2017, the plaintiff commenced this action. Docket Item 1. On September 13, 2017, this Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). Docket Item 8. On December 28, 2017, the plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, to remand for further proceedings, Docket Item 14; on February 22, `, the defendant responded and moved for judgment..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO, District Judge.
On April 21, 2017, the plaintiff commenced this action. Docket Item 1. On September 13, 2017, this Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Docket Item 8. On December 28, 2017, the plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, to remand for further proceedings, Docket Item 14; on February 22, `, the defendant responded and moved for judgment on the pleadings, Docket Item 15; and on March 19, `, the plaintiff replied, Docket Item 16. On May 2, `, Judge Scott issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") finding that the defendant's motion should be granted and that the plaintiff's motion should be denied. Docket Item 17. The parties did not object to the R&R, and the time to do so now has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge's recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).
Although not required to do so in light of the above, this Court nevertheless has reviewed Judge Scott's R&R. Based on that review and the absence of any objections, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Scott's recommendation to grant the defendant's motion and deny the plaintiff's motion.
For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, to remand for further proceedings, Docket Item 14, is DENIED; the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Docket Item 15, is GRANTED; the complaint, Docket Item 1, is dismissed; and the Clerk of the Court shall close the file.
SO ORDERED.
