Strix, LLC et al v. GE Capital Commercial of Utah, LLC et al

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: SO ORDERED that the Court is satisfied that the Report is not facially erroneous. Accordingly, the Court accepts Magistrate Judge Wall's 14 Report in its entirety. Plaintiffs' 4 motion to reman d this action to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is denied. The parties shall appear, with authority or with persons with authority to settle this matter, at a conference before me, in courtroom 1010 located at 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, New York, 11722, on June 25,2012 at 11:15 a.m. The conference previously scheduled to be held before me on July 18, 2012 at 11:15 a.m. is canceled. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 6/4/2012. (Florio, Lisa)

.
~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

______________________________X
STRIX, LLC, I.S. WINGS, LLC, E.M. WINGS, LLC,
F.D. WINGS, LLC and F.M. WINGS, LLC,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER
-against-

CV-11-4403(SJF)(WDW)

FILED
GE CAPITAL COMMERCIAL OF UTAH, LLC
and GE CAPITAL CORP.,
Defendants.

==~~~~--------------------X
FEUERSTEIN, J.

IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U S DISTRICT COURT E D N Y

*

JUN 0 4 ZOlZ

*

LONG ISLAND OFFICE

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") of Magistrate
Judge William D. Wall, dated May 7, 2012, recommending that plaintiffs' motion to remand this
action to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) be denied. No objections have been filed to
the Report. For the reasons stated herein, the Court accepts Magistrate Judge Wall's Report in its
entirety.

I

Any portion of a report and recommendation on dispositive matters, to which a timely
objection has been made, is reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The
court, however, is not required to review the factual findings or legal conclusions of the magistrate
judge as to which no proper objections are interposed. See, Thomas v. Am. 474 U.S. 140, 150,
I 06 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 ( 1985). 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);
I

'
•

Johnson v. Goord, 487 F.Supp.2d 377,379 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), aff'd, 305 Fed. Appx. 815 (2d Cir.
Jan. 1, 2009); Baptichon v. Nevada State Bank, 304 F.Supp.2d 451,453 (E.D.N.Y. 2004), aff'd,
125 Fed.Appx. 374 (2d Cir. 2005). Whether or not proper objections have been filed, the district
judge may, after review, accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

II

No party has filed any objections to Magistrate Judge Wall's Report. Upon review, the
Court is satisfied that the Report is not facially erroneous. Accordingly, the Court accepts
Magistrate Judge Wall's Report in its entirety. Plaintiffs' motion to remand this action to state
court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is denied. The parties shall appear, with authority or with
persons with authority to settle this matter, at a conference before me, in courtroom 1010 located at
100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, New York, 11722, on June 25,2012 at 11:15 a.m. The
conference previously scheduled to be held before me on July 18, 2012 at II: 15 a.m. is cancelled.

SO ORDERED.

s/ Sandra J. Feuerstein

SANDi(~ J. FEUEiSTEIN
United States District Judge
Dated: June 4, 2012
Central Islip, New York

2