Summary
declining to order dismissal where pro se plaintiff did not appear for a deposition or respond to written discovery requests but "ha[d] not yet been warned that his failure to participate in discovery might result in the dismissal of his case"
Summary of this case from Smith v. FischerOpinion
File No. 2:07 CV 244.
March 25, 2009
ORDER
The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed March 2, 2009. Defendants' objections were filed March 17, 2009 and Plaintiff's response was filed on September 17, 2008.
A district judge must make a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which an objection is made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Perez-Rubio v. Wyckoff, 718 F.Supp. 217, 227 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). The district judge may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Id.
After careful review of the file, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and the objections, this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendation in full denying Defendants' motion to dismiss (Paper 19). In addition, all discovery is to be completed by plaintiff within twenty (20) days from the date of this order.