Opinion
05 Civ. 4988 (RMB) (GWG).
January 27, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER
I. Background
On May 25, 2005, Poseidonio Marine Ltd. ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Grupo Stein, S.A de C.V. ("Defendant") seeking (i) $1,013,383.01 in damages for breach of a maritime charter party, and (ii) an ex parte order for maritime attachment. On the same day, the Court ordered that process of maritime attachment be issued pursuant to Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule B"). (Order, dated May 25, 2005.) On December 8, 2005, Defendant filed a motion to vacate the Rule B order ("Motion").
On December 15, 2005, United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein, to whom the matter had been referred, issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the Motion be denied. (See Transcript of Proceedings, dated December 15, 2005, at 18 ("this is not simply a tactical device and [plaintiff] has an interest in the attachment for the purposes of securing a judgment.").)
The Report also advised that "[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have ten (10) days from service of the Report and Recommendation to serve and file any objections." (Report at 1). To date, neither party has submitted objections. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety.
II. Standard of Review
The Court may adopt those portions of a magistrate judge's report to which no objections have been made and which are not facially erroneous. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Grassia v. Scully, 892 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1989); Pizarro v. Bartlett, 776 F. Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). The court conducts a de novo review of those portions of the report to which objections have been made. Grassia 892 F.2d at 19; Pizarro, 776 F. Supp. at 817. Once objections have been received, a district court judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings and recommendations of the magistrate. See, e.g., Deluca v. Lord, 858 F. Supp. 1330, 1345 (S.D.N.Y. 1994);Walker v. Hood, 679 F. Supp. 372, 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
III. Analysis
The Court has conducted a review of the Report, the record, and applicable legal authorities and concludes that the Report is not clearly erroneous. The record and the law support Magistrate Judge Gorenstein's determinations in all material respects. See Pizarro, 776 F. Supp. at 817.
IV. Conclusion Order
The Court adopts the Report in its entirety and, for the reasons stated herein and therein, Defendant's Motion (Docket # 8) is denied.