Opinion
99 Civ. 3663 (WK) (DF); 01 Civ. 296 (WK) (DF)
March 20, 2002
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Since her sister's death in the December 1988 explosion of Pan American World Airways flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, Plaintiff Marina de Larracoechea Azumendi ("Azumendi") has vigorously pursued a number of lengthy legal actions through the trial and appellate courts of both Florida and New York. In May 1999, Azumendi filed the first of the above two-captioned federal actions, Marina de Larracoechea Azumendi v. Renee Roth, et al., No. 99 Civ. 3663 (S.D.N.Y.) (hereinafter referred to as the "1999 Federal Action"), as a result of events which had arisen over the course of the foregoing state court proceedings.
After Plaintiff substantively amended her initial complaint in September 1999, the defendants moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that, inter alia, we lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. In responding to the defendants' motion, Plaintiff filed, among other things, a cross-motion in September 2000 seeking: (a) summary judgment; (b) injunctive relief; (c) leave to amend her action to add a new party; and (d) leave to remove to this Court (i) proceedings involving a fee petition pending before the New York Surrogate's Court and (ii) a New York Supreme Court action, Marina de Larracoechea Azumendi v. Lionel Alan Marks, et al., Index No. 99-603712, which had been dismissed by the state court in March 2000. We referred these matters to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation.
After Magistrate Judge Freeman issued a Report and Recommendation on August 29, 2001 ("the August 29th Report") wherein she recommended the dismissal of both Azumendi's 1999 Federal Action as well the second action filed by Azumendi in January 2001, Judge Freeman issued a second Report and Recommendation on August 31, 2001 ("August 31st Report") recommending the denial of Azumendi's cross-motion in its entirety. After we granted Azumendi an extension of time in which to file her objections, Azumendi filed joint objections to both the August 29th Report and the August 31st Report. When various defendants thereafter submitted responses to her objections, Plaintiff subsequently filed reply objections to those responses in December 2001.
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, we "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). We are required to make a de novo determination as to the aspects of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. See id. See also Pizarro v. Bartlet (S.D.N.Y. 1991) 776 F. Supp. 815, 817.
In a separate opinion issued in tandem with the order herein, we adopted Judge Freeman's August 29th Report and dismissed both the 1999 and 2001 actions in their entirety. We have now reviewed and considered Judge Freeman's August 31st Report, as well as Plaintiff's objections and the full record available in this case, and, for the reasons set forth by Judge Freeman in the August 31st Report, we agree that Plaintiff's cross-motion must be denied.
Accordingly, we hereby adopt Judge Freeman's August 31st Report in its entirety and deny Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment, injunctive relief, removal, and leave to amend the 1999 Federal Action to add a new party.
SO ORDERED.