The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge
Pending before this Court are Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle's Report and Recommendation, dated February 2, 2007 ("Report") and objections to the Report filed by Lena Bedik pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). For the reasons below, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety.
A district court reviews a magistrate judge's report under the standards established in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The district judge makes a de novo determination of those parts of the Report to which a timely written objection has been made by any party but may adopt the uncontested portions of the Report unless they show clear error. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151-52, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed. 2d 435 (1985); Grassia v. Scully, 892 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1989); Tapia-Garcia v. United States, 53 F. Supp. 2d 370, 373 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). Such de novo review does not entirely replace the Report.
On September 9, 2005, Plaintiffs commenced this securities class action against DHB Industries, Inc. ("DHB") and its principals on behalf of those who purchased DHB stock between April 21, 2004 and August 29, 2005. Several actions followed, but lead counsel and lead plaintiffs were ultimately appointed. On March 20, 2006, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint ("CAC"). The CAC claims that the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent securities scheme and course of business, in violation of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, Section 20(a), Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-1 of the Exchange Act. (CAC ¶¶ 178-98.)
Seven months later, on October 18, 2006, Ms. Lena Bedik ("Bedik") moved to intervene. The Court referred this motion to Magistrate Judge Boyle on December 20, 2006. On February 2, 2007, the Magistrate filed his Report and recommended that this Court deny Bedik's motion to intervene. On February 16, 2007, Bedik timely filed her objections to the Report. Several parties replied to Bedik's objections.
During this time, on December 15, 2006, Lead Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of class action settlement. On January 26, 2007, the Court held a hearing regarding the preliminary approval but reserved on ruling. At this hearing, Bedik appeared and argued. On January 29, 2007, the Lead Plaintiffs requested to withdraw their motion so that they could comply with certain notification provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). On February 9, 2007, this Court granted that request and the motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement was deemed withdrawn without prejudice.
On March 13, 2007, Lead Plaintiffs then re-filed their motion for preliminary approval after complying with CAFA. On May 29, 2007, the Court held a second conference, and at this conference, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement pending filing of revised notices. After the revised notices were filed, the Court preliminarily approved the class action settlement on July 3, 2007. On that same date, the Court also certified the class as those who purchased DHB stock between November 18, 2003, and November 30, 2006 ("Class"). The Court set the final settlement hearing for October 5, 2007. The Court now turns to the Report and the objections at hand.
In the Report, the Magistrate recommended that this Court deny Bedik's motion to intervene. First, the Magistrate recommended that Bedik should not be granted intervention as of right. He found that Bedik's ability to protect her interest is not impaired or impeded and Bedik is adequately represented. Second, the Magistrate recommended that Bedik's motion for permissive intervention should be denied.
Bedik objects to all of the Magistrate's findings. At the outset, the Court notes that Bedik does not cite to any case law in support of her objections. Further, much of Bedik's objections focus on her opposition to class ...