United States District Court, E.D. New York
TRUSTEES OF EMPIRE STATE CARPENTERS ANNUITY, APPRENTICESHIP, LABOR-MANAGEMENT COOPERATION, PENSION, and WELFARE FUNDS, Plaintiff,
SYRACUSE FLOOR SYSTEMS, INC., SYRACUSE COMMERCIAL FLOOR, INC., and COMMERCIAL FLOOR SOLUTIONS, Defendants
For Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds, Plaintiff: Charles R. Virginia, LEAD ATTORNEY, Nathan V. Bishop, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York, NY.
For Syracuse Floor Systems, Inc., Defendant: Netanel Newberger, Milman Labuda Law Group PLLC, Lake Success, NY.
For Syracuse Commercial Floors, Inc., Defendant: Michael Davis Hoenig, LEAD ATTORNEY, Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP, Rochester, NY; Netanel Newberger, Milman Labuda Law Group PLLC, Lake Success, NY.
For Commercial Floor Solutions, Inc., Defendant: Robert Barnes Calihan, LEAD ATTORNEY, Calihan Law PLLC, Rochester, NY; Netanel Newberger, Milman Labuda Law Group PLLC, Lake Success, NY.
Sandra J. Feuerstein, United States District Judge.
Defendant Syracuse Floor Systems, Inc. (" SFS") has moved for an Order dismissing this case, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and compelling arbitration, which was referred to Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay for a Report and Recommendation (" Report"). The Report, dated December 5, 2014, recommends that SFS's motion be denied. No objections have been filed. For the following reasons, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Lindsay's Report in its entirety.
Any portion of a report and recommendation on dispositive matters, to which a timely objection is made, is reviewed de novo . 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The court, however, is not required to review the factual findings or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge where no proper objections are interposed, See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) (" It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."). Thus, to accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter to which no timely objection has been made, the district judge need only be satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Johnson v. Goord, 487 F.Supp.2d 377, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); Baptichon v. Nevada State Bank, 304 F.Supp.2d 451, 453 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). After conducting the appropriate review, a district court may accept, reject or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations whether or not objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
Upon review, the Court is satisfied that the Report is not facially erroneous and therefore, the Report is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss for failure ...