Solomon et al v. Kalish et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS -- For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN SUMMARY ORDER, plaintiffs' motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted for the sole purpose of this Order. In addition, upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") issued on September 27, 2013 by the Hon. Steven M. Gold, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge, and the objections thereto, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. The complaint is dismissed as t o all defendants. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. Un ited States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Electronic Order and the Attached Written Summary Order to pro se plaintiffs and to close this case. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 7/24/2014. (Irizarry, Dora)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ROBERT SOLOMON and JANE B.
SOLOMON, pro se,
MELVIN J. KALISH, THE LAW OFFICES OF :
MELVIN J. KALISH, PLLC, and MANATT, :
PHELPS AND PHILLIPS, LLC,
SUMMARY ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DORA L. IRIZARRY, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiffs, Robert and Jane B. Solomon, filed this action, pro se, seeking to relitigate
issues previously decided in earlier, related cases among plaintiffs, defendants, and other nonparties arising from a failed business venture. Plaintiffs seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(See Plaintiffs’ IFP Applications, Dkt. Entry Nos. 2, 3.) Their applications are granted for the
sole purpose of this Order. On September 27, 2013, Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Steven M. Gold issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court
dismiss this action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (See R&R, Dkt. Entry No. 5.)
Plaintiffs filed timely objections to the R&R. (See Plaintiffs’ Objections, Dkt. Entry No. 9.)
When a party objects to a R & R, a district judge must make a de novo determination
with respect to those portions of the R & R to which the party objects. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b);
United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F. 3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). If, however, a party makes
conclusory or general objections, or attempts to relitigate the party’s original arguments, the
court will review the R & R for clear error.
Robinson v. Superintendent, Green Haven
Correctional Facility, 2012 WL 123263, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2012) (quoting Walker v.
Vaughan, 216 F. Supp. 2d 290, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)). The district court may then “accept,
reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to
the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court has carefully considered each of plaintiffs’ objections to the R&R. Upon
review of the characteristically thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned R&R of Chief
Magistrate Judge Gold, the Court hereby adopts the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, this action
is dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Upon due consideration, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. The complaint is dismissed
as to all defendants. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this Order would not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for
purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
July 24, 2014
DORA L. IRIZARRY
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?