United States District Court, S.D. New York
PURUSHOTTAM C. KALOLA, Plaintiff,
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., ROBERT MURPHY, and VINCENT GRANUZZO, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Vincent L. Briccetti, United States District Judge
the Court is Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith's
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), dated
February 28, 2017 (Doc. #210), on defendants' motion for
summary judgment (Doc. #184). Judge Smith recommended that
the motion be granted.
following reasons, the Court adopts the R&R in its
entirety. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is
Standard of Review
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 fourteen 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), or within seventeen
days if the parties are served by mail. See
party submits timely objections to a report and
recommendation, the district court reviews the parts of the
report and recommendation to which the party objected under a
de novo standard of review. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). The
district court may adopt those portions of the recommended
ruling to which no timely objections have been made, provided
no clear error is apparent from the face of the record.
See Wilds v. UPS, Inc., 262 F.Supp.2d 163, 169
(S.D.N.Y. 2003). The clear error standard also applies when a
party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply
reiterates his original arguments. See Ortiz v.
Barkley, 558 F.Supp.2d 444, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, this Court
“will ‘read [his] supporting papers liberally,
and . . . interpret them to raise the strongest arguments
that they suggest.'” Id. (quoting
Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994)).
before the Court are plaintiff's timely objections to the
R&R-four largely unintelligible and repetitive
submissions, mostly typed into the margins and blank spaces
of other documents in the record. (Docs. ##215, 216, 217,
219). In these submissions, plaintiff appears to object to
the entirety of the R&R, and seeks to add several
additional defendants and claims, including defendants and
new claims that have previously been dismissed. Because
plaintiff has provided no factual or legal basis for
permitting the addition of these new defendants and claims,
the Court denies plaintiff's request to add additional
defendants and claims.
extent they are intelligible, plaintiff's objections
“engage the district court in a rehashing of the same
arguments” already made to, and addressed by, Judge
Smith. Edwards v. Fischer, 414 F.Supp.2d 342, 346-47
(S.D.N.Y. 2006). Accordingly, here, the appropriate standard
of review for the R&R is clear error.
its review, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the
in consideration of plaintiff's pro se status,
the Court has also conducted a de novo review of the
R&R, and has independently and thoroughly reviewed the
record and the relevant case law. Having done so, the Court
finds no merit in plaintiffs' objections. The Court finds
that the R&R is correct in all respects.
found no error, clear or otherwise, the Court adopts in its
entirety Judge Smith's thorough and well-reasoned ...