From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holland v. Goord

United States District Court, W.D. New York
Oct 8, 2010
05-CV-6295-CJS-MWP (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2010)

Opinion

05-CV-6295-CJS-MWP.

October 8, 2010


DECISION and ORDER


Siragusa, J. The Court referred this case on November 19, 2007, to U.S. Magistrate Judge Marion W. Payson pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On February 25, 2010, Defendants moved (Docket No. 63) to amend their answer to include an affirmative defense. On August 17, 2010, Judge Payson filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court deny Defendants' motion. On August 19, 2010, Defendants filed objections and Plaintiff filed its reply to Defendants' objections on August 30, 2010.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Upon a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and after reviewing the submissions of the parties, the Court accepts the proposed findings of the Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Judge Payson's Report and Recommendation, Defendants' motion to amend (Docket No. 63) their answer is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2010 Rochester, New York


Summaries of

Holland v. Goord

United States District Court, W.D. New York
Oct 8, 2010
05-CV-6295-CJS-MWP (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2010)
Case details for

Holland v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:DARRYL HOLLAND, Plaintiff, v. GLENN S. GOORD, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, W.D. New York

Date published: Oct 8, 2010

Citations

05-CV-6295-CJS-MWP (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2010)

Citing Cases

Stokes v. Wayne Cnty.

As applicable authority demonstrates, the critical consideration is whether plaintiff acted with the…