Shariff v. Beach 90th Street Realty Corp. et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Parties had until March 27, 2013 to file objections to this R&R. No objections have been filed. After careful review of the record, the Court finds the R&R to be correct, well-reasoned, and free of any clear error. The Court, therefore, adopts the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. All claims as to defendant NSWC are dismissed without prejudice. Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 4/3/2013. (Brucella, Michelle)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------)C
ABDUL SHARIFF,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Plaintiff,
11-CV-2551 (ENV) (CLP)
-againstBEACH 90TH STREET REALTY CORP. and NEW
SUPER WOK CORP.,
Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------)C
VITALIANO, D.J.
Plaintiff, Abdul Shariff, commenced this action on May 26, 2011. Although plaintiff filed
proof of service for defendant New Super Wok Corp. ("NSWC") the service did not comport with
the requisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h). On January 17,2013, Magistrate Judge Lois
Bloom issued an Order advising plaintiff of this defect in service and directing plaintiff to take
appropriate action or the court would dismiss the case against defendant NSWC. Having received
no response from plaintiff, Magistrate Judge Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation (the
"R&R") on March 13,2013, recommending that plaintiffs claims against defendant NSWC be
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In reviewing a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, a district judge "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). Further, a district judge is required to "determine de
novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3); see also Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 2010). But, where
no timely objection has been made, the "district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record" to accept a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. Urena
v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606,609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp.
1

1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)).
Parties had until March 27,2013 to file objections to this R&R. No objections have been
filed. After careful review of the record, the Court finds the R&R to be correct, well-reasoned, and
free of any clear error. The Court, therefore, adopts the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the
Court. All claims as to defendant NSWC are dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
April 3, 2013

s/ENV

ERlCN. VITALIANO
United States District Judge

2