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.

Gallipoli v. United States

United States District Court, E.D. New York

March 13, 2014

ROSLYN GALLIPOLI, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

MICHAEL ADAM FISCHBEIN, ESQ., Paul B. Weitz & Associates, P.C., New York, NY, for the Plaintiff.

ORELIA E. MERCHANT, ESQ., United States Attorneys Office, Eastern District Of New York, Brooklyn, NY for the Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FREDERIC BLOCK, Senior District Judge.

On November 25, 2013, Magistrate Judge James Orenstein issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the court approve the parties' settlement in accordance with the terms set forth in the plaintiff's proposed Compromise Order. The parties propose to settle the plaintiff's claims for a total payment of $300, 000.

The R&R states that "[a]ny objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed no later than December 13, 2013. Failure to file objections within this period designating the particular issues to be reviewed waives the right to appeal the district court's order." R&R at 3. A copy of the R&R was served on the defendant at its last known address on November 26, 2013. To date, no objections have been filed.

Where, as here, 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 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); 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).

As no error appears on the face of Magistrate Judge Orenstein's R&R, the Court adopts it without de novo review. Accordingly, the court approves the settlement in accordance with the terms set forth in the plaintiff's proposed Compromise Order.

SO ORDERED.


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.