Oka v. Cnty. of Suffolk

Full title: ALFRED OKA and FRANCIS OKA, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, SUFFOLK…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Mar 2, 2015

11-CV-2578 (SJF) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2015)

Opinion

11-CV-2578 (SJF)

03-02-2015

ALFRED OKA and FRANCIS OKA, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE OFFICER EDWARD RYBY, and SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE DETECTIVE FRIEDLANDER, Defendants.

FEUERSTEIN, District Judge.

ORDER

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), dated February 4, 2015, recommending that defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's complaint be granted. No objections to the Report have been filed. For the following reasons, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Brown's Report in its entirety.

I

Any portion of a report and recommendation on dispositive matters, to which a timely objection is made, is reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The court, however, is not required to review the factual findings or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge where no proper objections are interposed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."). Thus, to accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter to which no timely objection has been made, the district judge need only be satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Johnson v. Goord, 487 F. Supp. 2d 377, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); Baptichon v. Nevada State Bank, 304 F. Supp. 2d 451, 453 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). After conducting the appropriate review, a district court may accept, reject or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations whether or not objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

II

Neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Brown's Report and the time to file objections has passed. Upon review, the Court is satisfied that the Report is not facially erroneous and therefore, the Report is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the Clerk of the Court shall close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 2, 2015

Central Islip, New York

s/ Sandra J. Feuerstein

Sandra J. Feuerstein, U.S.D.J.