Castro v. City of New York et al

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Pollak in its entirety. The court GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 10/18/2012. (Lee, Tiffeny)

FILED

IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U S DISTRICT COURT E.D.NY

* OCT 2 2 2012 *

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------------){

BROOKLYN OFFICE

LUIS CASTRO,

ORDER
Plaintiff,

ll-CV-5379 (NGG) (CLP)
-against-

CITY OF NEW YORK, P.O. DREW
SCHLESINGER and JOHN DOES 1-4,
Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------------){

NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.

On November 2, 2011, Plaintiff Luis Castro filed this Complaint against Defendants City
of New York, Police Officer Drew Schlesinger, and John Does 1-4 alleging various claims arising
from an allegedly unlawful arrest. (Compi. (Dkt. 1).) On March 12,2012, Defendants
submitted a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 9), which was referred to Magistrate Judge
Cheryl L. Pollak for a report and recommendation ("R&R") (Jan. 10,2012, Minute Entry).
Plaintiff had filed a previous lawsuit against the City of New York and another police
officer related to a separate allegedly unlawful arrest, which was settled on September 6, 2011.
See Castro v. City of New York, No. l1-CV-290 (RJD) (SMG) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6,2011), Dkt. 11.
Defendants argue that the release Plaintiff executed in connection with that settlement precludes
the instant action. (Def. Summ. J. Mem. (Dkt. 10).) On March 27, 2012, Plaintiffs counsel
informed Judge Pollak that "[a]fter careful review of the applicable facts and law[, he] ha[d]
decided to not interpose opposition papers to the defendant's [sic] motion for summary judgment."
(PI. Ltr. (Dkt. 14).) On June 26,2012, Judge Pollak issued her R&R, recommending that the

1

court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the grounds of release. (R&R (Dkt.
17).)
No party has objected to Judge Pollak's R&R, and the time to do so has long passed. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Accordingly, the court reviews Judge Pollak's R&R for clear error.
See Gesualdi v. Mack Excavation & Trailer Serv., Inc., No. 09-CV-2502 (KAM) (10), 2010 WL
985294, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15,2010); La Torres v. Walker, 216 F. Supp. 2d 157, 159 (S.D.N.Y.
2000); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Finding no clear error in the R&R, the court adopts it in its
entirety. See Porter v. Potter, 219 F. App'x 112 (2d Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the court
GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to close the case.
SO ORDERED.

s/Nicholas G. Garaufis

NICHOLAS G~ GARAUFIS
United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
October
2012

l!,

2

Q)