Perez v. Cleaners

Full title: LOURDES PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. QUEENS BORO YANG CLEANERS, et al., Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Apr 5, 2016

14 CV 7310 (SJ) (JO) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2016)

Opinion

14 CV 7310 (SJ) (JO)

04-05-2016

LOURDES PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. QUEENS BORO YANG CLEANERS, et al., Defendant.

APPEARANCES CILENTI & COOPER PC 708 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 By: Giustino Cilenti Attorneys for Plaintiff

JOHNSON, Senior District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

APPEARANCES CILENTI & COOPER PC
708 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
By: Giustino Cilenti
Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHNSON, Senior District Judge:

Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("Report") prepared by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein. Judge Orenstein issued the Report on March 17, 2016, and provided the parties until April 4, 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 10 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 Orenstein's recommendations were due on April 4, 2016. No objections to the Report were filed with this Court. Upon review of the recommendations, this Court adopts and affirms Magistrate Judge Orenstein's Report in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 5, 2016

Brooklyn, NY

/s/_________

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