United States District Court, N.D. New York
MEDICAL/SURGICAL GROUP TRUST and MAZZEO UNUM RIZZO DIX SNECHLOR, Plaintiffs,
NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INC.; et al., Defendants.
LAWRENCE E. KAHN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court following Report-Recommendations filed on December 6, 2013, and February 24, 2014, by the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. Nos. 5 ("First Report-Recommendation"); 7 ("Second Report-Recommendation"). Judge Hummel recommended that Plaintiffs Medical/Surgical Group Trust and Mazzeo Unum Rizzo Dix Snechlor's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. See generally First Report-Rec.; Second Report-Rec.; Dkt. No. 1 ("Complaint"). No objections were filed. See generally Docket.
A district court must review de novo any objected-to portions of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation or specific proposed findings or recommendations therein and "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); accord FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); see also Morris v. Local 804, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters , 167 F.Appx. 230, 232 (2d Cir. 2006); Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-0857 , 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013). If no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Chylinski v. Bank of Am., N.A. , 434 F.Appx. 47, 48 (2d Cir. 2011).
Upon review of the Report-Recommendation, the Court finds that it is not subject to attack for clear error, and accordingly accepts and adopts it in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendations (Dkt. Nos. 5, 7) are APPROVED and ADOPTED in their entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff Mazzeo Unum Rizzo Dix Snechlor, if he wishes to pursue this action, must file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Order that remedies the deficiencies outlined in the Report-Recommendations; and it is further
ORDERED, that if Plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint as directed above, the Clerk shall enter judgment indicating that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice without further order of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In that event, the Clerk is directed to close this case; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff Medical/Surgical Group Trust, having failed to retain counsel in this action, is DISMISSED from this case; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order ...