Opinion
No. 00 Civ. 6542 (LAK).
January 20, 2005
ORDER
In a report and recommendation dated January 3, 2005, Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox recommended that defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint be granted and that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the plaintiff's state law claims and Ortiz's state law counterclaim. No objections to those recommendations having been received, they are adopted and the motions disposed of as recommended.
Ortiz has submitted a document entitled Objections to Report and Recommendation, but the document does not in fact object to the report and recommendation.
In a separate order, also dated January 3, 2005, Judge Fox struck defendant Ortiz's motion for sanctions pursuant to Rules 11 and 37. Ortiz's "objections" complain at length of the order striking the Rule 11 motion. In consequence, the Court treats the objections as an appeal from the order. But the appeal is without merit.
Even assuming that the appeal is timely, which is questionable, the order appealed from may be overturned only if Judge Fox rested his decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact. He struck the Rule 11 motion on the ground that it was combined with a motion for sanctions under Rule 37 in violation of Rule 11(c)(1)(A). That ruling clearly was correct.
Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.
SO ORDERED.