From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldstein v. Solucorp Indus., Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Oct 16, 2015
11 CV 6227 (VB) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2015)

Opinion

11 CV 6227 (VB)

10-16-2015

MICHAEL GOLDSTEIN, et al., Plaintiff, v. SOLUCORP INDUSTRIES, LTD., et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION :

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), dated September 18, 2015 (Doc. #195), recommending that the Court deny motions for summary judgment filed by pro se defendants Israel Tyberg (Doc. #184) and Richard Greene (Doc. #187).

The Court presumes familiarity with the factual and procedural background of this case. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court.

A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation "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). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, but they must be "specific[,] written," and submitted within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Insofar as a report and recommendation deals with a dispositive motion, a district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which timely objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record. Lewis v. Zon, 573 F. Supp. 2d 804, 811 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).

No party objected to Judge Davison's thorough and well-reasoned R&R.

The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. Israel Tyberg's and Richard Greene's motions for summary judgment are DENIED.

The Clerk is instructed to terminate the pending motion. (Doc. #187). Dated: October 16, 2015

White Plains, NY

SO ORDERED:

/s/_________

Vincent L. Briccetti

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Goldstein v. Solucorp Indus., Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Oct 16, 2015
11 CV 6227 (VB) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2015)
Case details for

Goldstein v. Solucorp Indus., Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL GOLDSTEIN, et al., Plaintiff, v. SOLUCORP INDUSTRIES, LTD., et…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Oct 16, 2015

Citations

11 CV 6227 (VB) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2015)

Citing Cases

Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Genovese

Because defendant Genovese is representing himself in this action, the Court is obligated construe his…

Reynoso v. Tousson

Tousson did not submit a statement of material facts pursuant to Local Rule 56.1. "Although noncompliance…