Lopez v. 41-06 Bell Blvd. Bakery LLC

Full title: Fidel Sanchez Lopez, Plaintiff, v. 41-06 Bell Blvd. Bakery LLC et al.…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Oct 20, 2016

15 CV 6953 (SJ) (PK) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2016)

Opinion

15 CV 6953 (SJ) (PK)

10-20-2016

Fidel Sanchez Lopez, Plaintiff, v. 41-06 Bell Blvd. Bakery LLC et al., Defendants.

APPEARANCES Lee Litigation Group 30 East 39th St., 2nd Fl. New York, NY 10016 By: Anne Seelig C.K. Lee Attorneys for Plaintiff Akerman LLP 666 Fifth Ave., 20th Fl. New York, NY 10103 By: Vincent Mantella Avery

JOHNSON, Senior District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

APPEARANCES Lee Litigation Group
30 East 39^th St., 2^nd Fl.
New York, NY 10016
By: Anne Seelig

C.K. Lee
Attorneys for Plaintiff Akerman LLP
666 Fifth Ave., 20^th Fl.
New York, NY 10103
By: Vincent Mantella Avery JOHNSON, Senior District Judge:

Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("Report") prepared by Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo. Judge Kuo issued the Report on October 3, 2016, and provided the parties until October 17, 2016 to file any objections. Neither party filed any objections to the Report. For the reasons stated herein, this Court affirms and adopts the Report in its entirety.

A district court judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine certain motions pending before the Court and to submit to the Court proposed findings of fact and a recommendation as to the disposition of the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days of service of the recommendation, any party may file written objections to the magistrate's report. See id. Upon de novo review of those portions of the record to which objections were made, the district court judge may affirm or reject the recommendations. See id. The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal this Court's Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Small v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).

In this case, objections to Magistrate Judge Kuo's recommendations were due on October 17, 2016. No objections to the Report were filed with this Court. Upon review of the recommendations, this Court adopts and affirms Magistrate Judge Kuo's Report in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 20, 2016

Brooklyn, NY

/S/_________

Sterling Johnson, Jr., U.S.D.J.