From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roach v. Zarian

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Apr 26, 2018
5:15-CV-1381 (LEK/TWD) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2018)

Opinion

5:15-CV-1381 (LEK/TWD)

04-26-2018

MATTHEW J. ROACH, Plaintiff, v. VAROOSH ZARIAN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on March 20, 2018, by the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 115 ("Report-Recommendation"). Pro se plaintiff Matthew J. Roach did not file objections.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). If no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306-07, 306 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Orange, 748 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-CV-13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) ("[E]ven a pro se party's objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate's proposal, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a prior argument."). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." § 636(b). Otherwise, a court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Id.

III. DISCUSSION

No objections were filed in the allotted time period. Docket. Thus, the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 115) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 26, 2018

Albany, New York

/s/_________

Lawrence E. Kahn

U.S. District Judge


Summaries of

Roach v. Zarian

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Apr 26, 2018
5:15-CV-1381 (LEK/TWD) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2018)
Case details for

Roach v. Zarian

Case Details

Full title:MATTHEW J. ROACH, Plaintiff, v. VAROOSH ZARIAN, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Apr 26, 2018

Citations

5:15-CV-1381 (LEK/TWD) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2018)