Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Trustees of the Plumbers Local Union No. 1 Welfare Fund v. Generation II Plumbing & Heating

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


September 30, 2009

TRUSTEES OF THE PLUMBERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1 WELFARE FUND, ADDITIONAL SECURITY BENEFIT FUND, VACATION & HOLIDAY FUND, TRADE EDUCATION FUND AND 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN, AND GEORGE W. REILLY, AS BUSINESS MANAGER OF LOCAL UNION NO. 1. OF THE UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
GENERATION II PLUMBING & HEATING, INC., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Johnson, Senior District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("Report") prepared by Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold. Judge Gold issued the Report on September 9, 2009, and provided the parties with more than the requisite amount of time to file any objections. Neither party filed any objections to the Report. For the reasons stated herein, this Court affirms and adopts the Report in its entirety.

A district court judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine certain motions pending before the Court and to submit to the Court proposed findings of fact and a recommendation as to the disposition of the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 10 days of service of the recommendation, any party may file written objections to the magistrate's report. See Id. Upon de novo review of those portions of the record to which objections were made, the district court judge may affirm or reject the recommendations. See Id. The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal this Court's Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Small v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).

In this case, objections to Magistrate Judge Gold's recommendations were due on September 30, 2009. No objections to the Report were filed with this Court.

Therefore, this Court adopts and affirms Magistrate Judge Gold's Report in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

SO ORDERED.

20090930

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.