Opinion
22-cv-4356 (ARR) (CLP)
09-08-2023
ALEXIS GARCIA, ALVIN MALDONADO, ANTONIO MONTIEL, DAVID TORRES, GREVIL MARTINEZ, JOSUE MARTINEZ, LUIS MIGUEL ZALDIVAR, LUIS SAMUEL MARTINEZ, LUIS MARTINEZ ESCOTO, STENFORD ANDREW MITCHELL, and WANDY RAMIREZ, Plaintiffs v. PADIN DAY INTERIOR GROUP LLC, and RAMIRO PADIN, individually, Defendants.
Not for electronic or print publication
OPINION & ORDER
ROSS, United States District Judge:
This Court has received the Report and Recommendation on the instant case dated August 15, 2023, from the Honorable Cheryl L. Pollak, United States Magistrate Judge. No objections have been filed. The Court reviews “de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see also Brissett v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth., No. 09-CV-874 (CBA)(LB), 2011 WL 1930682, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2011), aff'd, 472 Fed.Appx. 73 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order). Where no timely objections have been filed, “the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Finley v. Trans Union, Experian, Equifax, No. 17-CV-0371 (LDH)(LB), 2017 WL 4838764, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2017) (quoting Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imports Ltd., 812 F.Supp.2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)). Having reviewed the record, I find no clear error. I therefore adopt the Report and Recommendation, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion to amend is denied at this time without prejudice to renew at a later time.
SO ORDERED.