From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Conte v. Manhattan Dental Arts

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jan 22, 2009
No. 05 Civ. 10468 (LTS) (RLE) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2009)

Opinion

No. 05 Civ. 10468 (LTS) (RLE).

January 22, 2009


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT RECOMMENDATION


The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Ellis's December 17, 2008, Report and Recommendation (the "Report") which recommends that Defendant's motion to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute be denied. No objections to the Report have been received.

In reviewing a report and recommendation, a district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(C) (West 1993). "In a case such as this one, where no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Johnson v. New York University School of Education, No. 00 Civ. 8117, at *1, 2003 WL 21433443 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2003).

The Court has reviewed carefully Magistrate Judge Ellis's Report and Recommendation and finds no clear error. The Court therefore adopts the Report in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss the action is denied with leave to refile should Plaintiff, now pro se, fail to comply with her discovery responsibilities.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Conte v. Manhattan Dental Arts

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jan 22, 2009
No. 05 Civ. 10468 (LTS) (RLE) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2009)
Case details for

Conte v. Manhattan Dental Arts

Case Details

Full title:MELISSA CONTE, Plaintiff, v. MANHATTAN DENTAL ARTS, et al., Defendant

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

Date published: Jan 22, 2009

Citations

No. 05 Civ. 10468 (LTS) (RLE) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2009)