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.

Preferred Group of Manhattan, Inc v. Robert J. Dooley and Cornelius R. Verhoest

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


January 17, 2013

PREFERRED GROUP OF MANHATTAN, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROBERT J. DOOLEY AND CORNELIUS R. VERHOEST, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Briccetti, J.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), dated December 27, 2012, on defendant Cornelius R. Verhoest's motion to dismiss the action based upon plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Judge Davison recommended the Court grant the motion. The Court presumes familiarity with the factual and procedural background of this case. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court, and grants the motion to dismiss the action based upon plaintiff's failure to prosecute.

A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation "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). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, but they must be "specific[,] written," and submitted within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Insofar as a report and recommendation deals with a dispositive motion, a district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which timely objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record. Lewis v. Zon, 573 F.Supp.2d 804, 811 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y.1985). The clearly erroneous standard also applies when a party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments. Ortiz v. Barkley, 558 F. Supp. 2d 444, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

Plaintiff did not object to Judge Davison's decision.

The Court has reviewed Judge Davison's thorough and well-reasoned R&R and finds no clear error.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. The motion to dismiss the action based upon plaintiff's failure to prosecute is GRANTED. The Clerk is requested to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

SO ORDERED:

Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge

20130117

© 1992-2013 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.