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.

Brent v. the City of New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


July 13, 2012

BRENT CRUCETA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, JASON GUZMAN, JOHN DOE, AND RICHARD ROE, DEFENDANTS.

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On February 24, 2012, Magistrate Judge James Orenstein issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the court award attorneys' fees to plaintiff Brent Cruceta in the total amount of $21,598. In addition to $12,500 for the work of three attorneys at Rankin & Taylor, LLP to which the parties have already agreed, that amount includes $4,275 for the work of attorney Lurie Daniel Favors prior to the plaintiff's acceptance of the defendants' offer of judgment, $1,387.50 for her work on the fee petition, and $3,435.50 for the Rankin & Taylor firm's work on the fee petition. See R&R at 14. The R&R also stated that the parties' failure to object within fourteen days of receiving the R&R would preclude appellate review. See id. According to the docket, all parties received electronic notice of the R&R on the date it was filed. To date, no objections have been filed.

If clear notice has been given of the consequences of failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate's decision."). The Court will excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error, see Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000); no such error appears here. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R without de novo review and directs the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the R&R.

SO ORDERED.

FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge

20120713

© 1992-2012 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.