Riverkeeper, Inc. v. MLV Concrete Inc. et al

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The parties have filed no objections to Magistrate Judge Kuo's Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's motion to approve consent judgment. The Court has reviewed the record and the Report and Recom mendation for clear error, and, finding none, hereby adopts Magistrate Judge Kuo's Report and Recommendation 49 in its entirety as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to approve consent judgment is hereby GRANTED. See attached Order for details. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case. Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 7/25/2017. (Valentin, Winnethka)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------x RIVERKEEPER, INC., Plaintiff, ORDER 14-CV-3762 (LDH)(PK) -againstMLV CONCRETE, INC., EMPIRE TRANSIT MIX, INC., and ROCCO TOMASSETTI Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------x LASHANN DEARCY HALL, United States District Judge: On June 26, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo issued a report and recommendation (the “Report and Recommendation”) (R. & R., ECF No. 49), which recommended that Plaintiff Riverkeeper, Inc.’s motion, with the consent of Defendant MLV Concrete, Inc., Defendant Empire Transit Mix, Inc., and Defendant Rocco Tomassetti’s, for entry of the proposed consent decree be granted. (See Pls.’ Mot. To Approve Consent J., ECF No. 47.) Any written objections to the report and recommendation had to be filed with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of the report; responses to any objections were due fourteen (14) days thereafter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). No objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation. Where no objections to a report and recommendation have been filed, “the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imps. Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error and, finding none, hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of this Court. 1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to approve the consent judgment is hereby granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Dated: July 25, 2017 Brooklyn, New York SO ORDERED: /s/ LDH LASHANN DEARCY HALL United States District Judge 2

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?