Delgrosso v. The City of New York et al

Filing 55

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The 53 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Vicktor Pohorelsky, dated August 26, 2013, to which no objections have been filed, is adopted in its entirety. Defendants' 38 motion to enforce the settlement agreement is granted. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 9/13/2013. (Olson, Kristin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------VINCENT DELGROSSO,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
11-CV-4876 (MKB)

v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Vincent Delgrosso commenced the above-captioned action on October 6, 2011,
against Defendants City of New York, Detective Dominick Caminiti, Police Officer Dennis
Maira and Police Officers John Joes 1–5, alleging violations of his rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983,
the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and New York state law. (Docket Entry
No. 1.) Plaintiff amended the complaint on March 23, 2012, to add Defendants Detective
Matthew Edelman, Detective Louis Tornio, Detective Anthony Ricci, Detective Mitchell
Friedman, Sergeant Roger Perez and Sergeant Patrick Golden. (Docket Entry No. 9.) On
December 14, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to enforce the oral settlement agreement between
the parties, which motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Vicktor Pohorelsky. (Docket Entry
No. 38 and January 14, 2013 Court Order.) By Report and Recommendation dated August 26,
2013 (“R&R”), Judge Pohorelsky recommended that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to
enforce the settlement agreement. (Docket Entry No. 53.) No objections were filed.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s recommended ruling “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)(C). “Failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

within the prescribed time limit ‘may operate as a waiver of any further judicial review of the
decision, as long as the parties receive clear notice of the consequences of their failure to
object.’” Sepe v. New York State Ins. Fund, 466 F. App’x 49, 50 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting United
States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997)); see also Wagner & Wagner, LLP v.
Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C., 596 F.3d 84, 92 (2d Cir. 2010)
(“[A] party waives appellate review of a decision in a magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation if the party fails to file timely objections designating the particular issue.”).
The Court has reviewed the R&R, and, finding no clear error, the Court adopts Judge
Pohorelsky’s R&R in its entirety. Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement is
granted.
SO ORDERED:

S/ MKB
MARGO K. BRODIE
United States District Judge
Dated: September 13, 2013
Brooklyn, New York

2