Adams v. Roehl Transport, Inc.

Full title: KENNETH J. ADAMS, Plaintiffs, v. ROEHL TRANSPORT, INC., et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Jun 28, 2010

09-CV-5637 (SJ) (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 28, 2010)

Opinion

09-CV-5637 (SJ).

June 28, 2010

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STERLING JOHNSON JR., District Judge

Kenneth Adams ("Plaintiff") brought this action, pursuant to Sections 5012 and 5012(d) of the Insurance Law of the State of New York, against Roehl Transport, Inc, ("Defendant") alleging serious personal and economic injuries.

By letter to the Court dated March 1, 2010, Defendant's counsel reported that the parties had reached a settlement. However, they have failed to file a stipulation of discontinuance within the time scheduled by the Court. On May 24, 2010, Magistrate Judge Steven Gold issued a Report and Recommendation (the "Report"), recommending that all claims in this action be dismissed with prejudice unless a motion to re-open is filed within 30 days of any order adopting the Report.

A district court judge may designate a magistrate 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 ten days of service of the recommendation, any party may file written objections to the magistrate's report. 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. 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 Gold's recommendations were due within fourteen days of the May 24, 2010 decision, or at the latest by June 7, 2010. No objections were filed with this Court. Upon review of the recommendations, this Court adopts and affirms Magistrate Judge Gold's Report in its entirety.

SO ORDERED.