UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
March 22, 2011
SAMUEL CABASSA, PLAINTIFF,
JOSEPH T. SMITH, DEFENDANTS.
DECISION and ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on February 22, 2011 by the Honorable David E. Peebles, 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. 57). After fourteen days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned, including the objections by Samuel Cabassa, which were filed on March 10, 2011. Objections (Dkt. No. 58).
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 and 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. 58) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 48) is GRANTED, and that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Albany, New York
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.