Sirota v. vladislavsirotascam.com et al

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error and, finding none, concurs with the R&R in its entirety. See Covey v. Simonton , 481 F. Supp. 2d 224, 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Sirota's action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 3/8/2017. (Taronji, Robert)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------------)(
VLAD ISLA V S. SIROTA,
Plaintiff,
- against -

ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
16-CV-1 164 (RRM) (LB)

VLAD ISLAVS IROTASCAM.COM;
VLAD ISLA VSIROTASCAM.BLOGSPOT.COM;
VLAD ISLA VSIROTA.COM;
[e-mail]; and
JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES # 1-10,
Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------------)(
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Vladislav Sirota ("Sirota") commenced this action on March 7, 2016, alleging that
defendants - unknown website registrants and operators - have violated his statutory right of
privacy and are liable under the doctrines of libel per se, defamation, and the Anticybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) (2012).
On April 1, 2016, in an order related to discovery, the magistrate judge assigned to this case,
the Honorable Lois Bloom, reminded Si rota of his obligations to timely serve defendants with the
summons and complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (" Rule") 4(m). (Doc. No. 5.)
Judge Bloom warned Sirota that if he failed to file proof that defendants were timely served with
process by June 7, 20 16, she would recommend that thi s action be dismissed without prej udice. As
of the date of this Order, Sirota has fail ed to file proof of service or show good cause why service
was not timely effected.
On August 10, 20 16, Judge Bloom issued a sua sponte Report and Recommendation
("R&R"), a copy of which was electronically mailed to Sirota, recommending that Sirota' s action
be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). (R&R (Doc. No. 8).) Judge Bloom

reminded the parties that, pursuant to Rule 72(b), any objections to the R&R must be filed by
August 24, 2016. No party has filed any objection.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the Court has
reviewed the R&R for clear error and, finding none, concurs with the R&R in its entirety. See

Covey v. Simonton, 481 F. Supp. 2d 224, 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Sirota' s action be dismi ssed without prejudice
pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

SO ORDERED.

Ros{ynn 'R. :A1ausk.oyf
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March 8, 2016
ROSL YNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge

2