Jingrong et al v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance et al

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING 35 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 27 First Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Michael Chu, Wan Hongjuan, Li Huahong, Zhu Zirou, Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance. For the reasons stated herein, Judge Scalon's Report and Recommendation dated January 28, 2016, recommending that Defendants' motion be denied and that this matter be remanded for further development of the record, is adopted in its entirety. Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 3/17/2016. (Barrett, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------x
ZHANG Jingrong, ZHOU Yanhua, ZHANG Peng,
ZHANG Cuiping, WET Min,LO Kitsuen,
CAO Lijum, HU Yang, GUO Xiaofang,
GAO Jinying, CUT Lina, XU Ting, BIAN Hexiang,

MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER
15cv1046 (SLT) (VMS)

Plaintiffs,
-againstChinese Anti-Cult World Alliance (CACWA),
Michael CHU, LI Huahong, WAN Hongjuan,
ZHU Zirou, and DOES 1-5 Inclusive,
-Defendants -

-

PILED
OFFICE
OUPIEr) N. Y

MAR 22 2016
BROOKLYN OFFICE

TOWNES, United States District Judge:
On March 3, 2015, Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a Complaint against
Defendants alleging conspiracy to violate civil rights and to prevent authorities from providing
full, free, equal access to public spaces in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), interference with
religious freedom in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 248, bias related violence and intimidation in
violation of N.Y. Civ. Rights L. § 79-n, and asserting certain common law claims. (ECF No. 2.)
All Defendants, except DOES 1-5, have moved for partial dismissal of the Complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 27.) By order dated August 27, 2015
(ECF No. 31), this Court referred Defendants' motion to Magistrate Vera M. Scanlon ("Judge
Scanlon") for a report and recommendation ("R&R").
On January 28, 2016, Judge Scanlon electronically filed and served her R&R in which
she recommended that Defendants' motion be denied in its entirety and that any objections to the
R&R were due by February 11, 2016. (ECF No. 35.) To date, no objections have been filed and
no party has requested an extension of time in which to do so.
A district court is not required to review the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate
judge as to those portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed.

See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Even when no objections are filed, however,

many courts seek to satisfy themselves "that there is no clear error on the face of the record."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note (1983 Addition); see also Edwards v. Town of

Huntington, No. 05 Civ. 339 (NGG) (AKT), 2007 WL 2027913, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2007).
Although not required to do so, this Court has reviewed Judge Scanlon's R&R for clear
error on the face of the record. The Court finds no clear error, and therefore adopts the R&R in
its entirety as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Judge Scalon's Report and Recommendation dated January
28 3 2016, recommending that Defendants' motion be denied and that this matter be remanded for
further development of the record, is adopted in its entirety.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sandra L. Townes
~ANDRA L. TOWNES
United States District Judge

7,

Dated: March /
2016
Brooklyn, New York