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.

Harris v. Taylor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


July 29, 2010

FREDDIE HARRIS PLAINTIFF,
v.
JUSTIN A. TAYLOR, JONATHAN NOCERA, ALAN TAYLOR DEFENDANTS.

DECISION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on July 14, 2010 by the Honorable George H. Lowe, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3 of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 24). On July 26, 2010, Plaintiff Freddie Harris ("Plaintiff") filed objections to Report-Recommendation. Dkt. No. 25 ("Objections").

This Court is to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. Where, however, an objecting "'party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error.'" Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting McAllan v. Von Essen, 517 F. Supp. 2d 672, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citations and quotations omitted); see alsoBrown v. Peters, No. 95-CV-1641, 1997 WL 599355, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997). "A [district] judge . . . 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 Court has considered the Objections, has undertaken a de novo review of the record, and has determined that the Report-Recommendation should be approved for the reasons stated therein.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 24) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 19) is DENIED, and it is further

ORDERED, Defendants' Cross-Motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 20) is GRANTED, and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100729

© 1992-2010 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.