Opinion
11 CR 134 (SJ)
01-16-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. AVIGDOR GUTWEIN, YUDAH NEUMAN, MOSES NEUMAN, and LEO FEKETE, Defendants.
LORETTA E. LYNCH United States Attorney Eastern District of New York By: Charles Kleinberg Attorneys for the Government LAW OFFICE OF JACOB LAUFER By: Jacob Laufer Attorney for Avigdor Gutwein SPEARS & IMES LLP By: David Spears Michelle Skinner Attorneys for Yudah Neuman HAFETZ NECHELES & ROCCO By: Susan R. Necheles Joshua R.Geller Attorneys for Moses Neuman LAW OFFICES OF HARRY BATCHELDER, JR. By: Harry Batchelder, Jr. Attorney for Leo Fekete
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
APPEARANCES LORETTA E. LYNCH
United States Attorney
Eastern District of New York
By: Charles Kleinberg
Attorneys for the Government
LAW OFFICE OF JACOB LAUFER
By: Jacob Laufer Attorney for Avigdor Gutwein
SPEARS & IMES LLP
By: David Spears
Michelle Skinner
Attorneys for Yudah Neuman
HAFETZ NECHELES & ROCCO
By: Susan R. Necheles
Joshua R.Geller
Attorneys for Moses Neuman
LAW OFFICES OF HARRY BATCHELDER, JR.
By: Harry Batchelder, Jr.
Attorney for Leo Fekete
JOHNSON, Senior District Judge:
Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("Report") prepared by Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold. Judge Gold issued the Report on November 30, 2012, recommending that this Court deny various pretrial motions filed by defendants Avigdor Gutwein ("Gutwein"), Leo Fekete ("Fekete"), Yudah Neuman and Moses Neuman (collectively "Defendants"). Defendants Gutwein, Yudah Neuman and Moses Neuman subsequently pled guilty and are awaiting sentencing. Defendant Fekete did not file 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, Defendants filed no objections to the Report. Upon review of the recommendations, this Court adopts and affirms Magistrate Judge Gold's Report in its entirety. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 16, 2014
Brooklyn, NY
__________
Sterling Johnson, Jr., U.S.D.J.