Opinion
20-CV-3463(EK)(VMS)
09-23-2023
MONICA JARAMA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 85-16 FOOD CORP. d/b/a CEVICHERIA EL REY, ISRAEL TELLEZ, and ROCIO RIOS, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
ERIC KOMITEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
The Court has received Magistrate Judge Scanlon's Report and Recommendation (R&R) dated August 21, 2023. ECF No. 59. Judge Scanlon recommends that I deny the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The defendants timely objected, raising fairly oblique challenges to the R&R's characterization of several pieces of evidence.
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. § 636(b)(1). The district court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which a party has specifically objected. Id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also Kruger v. Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd., 976 F.Supp.2d 290, 296 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (“A proper objection is one that identifies the specific portions of the R&R that the objector asserts are erroneous and provides a basis for this assertion.”), aff'd, 578 Fed.Appx. 51 (2d Cir. 2014). As to the portions of the R&R to which no party has sufficiently objected, the Court reviews for clear error on the face of the record. See Advisory Comm. Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); accord State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grafman, 968 F.Supp.2d 480, 481 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).
Having conducted a de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which the defendants have objected, and a review of the remaining portions for clear error, I adopt the R&R in its entirety. Simply put, none of the defendants' objections dictate a different conclusion than the R&R recommended. Thus, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied.
The parties are directed to submit a proposed joint pretrial order, consistent with Rule V.A. of this Court's Individual Rules and Practices, on or before October 30, 2023.
SO ORDERED.