Sylla v. Ruh
Filing
70
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. For the reasons set forth herein, having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, and having reviewed the R&R for clear error, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the well-reasoned and thorough R&R in their entirety. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Ruh's motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied. The Clerk of the Court shal l enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 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; therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purposes of an appeal. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 7/16/2013. (Samplin, Ilissa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------X
DAMANTANG SYLLA,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
-against:
:
PETER RUH and other unknown agents from
:
the U.S. Postal Service,
:
:
Defendants.
:
---------------------------------------------------------------X
JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge:
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
10-CV-3325 (JFB) (GRB)
Pro se plaintiff Damantang Sylla (“Sylla” or “plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action
on July 15, 2010. An amended complaint was filed on September 1, 2011, adding plaintiff Mohomed
Nabe (“Nabe”) to the action. On November 23, 2011, defendant Ruh filed a motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on December 30, 2011 and defendant replied on January 11,
2012. On January 26, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, which defendant Ruh
opposed on February 16, 2012. By Orders dated February 15, 2012 and February 16, 2012, the Court
referred both motions for summary judgment to Magistrate Judge Brown for a Report and
Recommendation. On August 30, 2012, Magistrate Judge Brown issued a Report and
Recommendation, which the Court adopted by Order dated September 24, 2012. Accordingly, (1)
summary judgment was granted as to Nabe and he was dismissed as a plaintiff in the case; (2)
summary judgment was granted as to Sylla’s Fourth Amendment claims; and (3) plaintiffs’ motion
for summary judgment was denied. Plaintiff was directed to file a second amended complaint by
October 26, 2012.
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against defendant Ruh on October 10, 2012. The
Court held a telephone pre-motion conference on November 16, 2012, during which it set a briefing
schedule for defendant Ruh’s second motion for summary judgment. Defendant Ruh filed his
second motion for summary judgment on December 21, 2012. Plaintiff filed an opposition and cross
motion for summary judgment on February 7, 2013 and defendant Ruh filed a reply on February 19,
2013. By Order dated May 9, 2013, the Court referred defendant Ruh’s second motion for summary
judgment to Magistrate Judge Brown for a Report and Recommendation. By Order dated May 21,
2013, Magistrate Judge Brown directed plaintiff to file any additional evidence regarding his
purported filing of an administrative tort claim in this matter on or before June 11, 2013. (See ECF
No. 68 (“Because this is a critical issue in the case, and based upon plaintiff’s pro se status, the
undersigned wants to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to submit any other information or
documents on this point. Plaintiff should be advised that failure to submit such documentation will
likely result in a recommendation that summary judgment be entered against him with respect to his
FTCA claims.”).) To date, plaintiff has not filed any such evidence.
On June 24, 2013, Magistrate Judge Brown issued a Report and Recommendation (the
“R&R”), recommending that summary judgment be granted in defendant Ruh’s favor and that the
matter be closed. The R&R further instructed that any objections to the R&R be submitted within
fourteen (14) days of service of the R&R. (See Report and Recommendation dated June 24, 2013,
at 8-9.) As indicated by the docket sheet, a copy of the R&R was mailed to plaintiff by Magistrate
Judge Brown’s Chambers on June 24, 2013. (See ECF No. 69.) No objections have been filed to
date, although the date for filing any objections has expired.
A district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. See DeLuca v. Lord, 858 F. Supp. 1330, 1345 (S.D.N.Y.
1994); Walker v. Hood, 679 F. Supp. 372, 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). As to those portions of a report to
which no “specific written objections” are made, the Court may accept the findings contained
therein, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings are not clearly erroneous. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., 956
2
F. Supp. 509, 513 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, and having reviewed
the R&R for clear error, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the wellreasoned and thorough R&R in their entirety. Even under a de novo standard, the Court adopts the
R&R in its entirety.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Ruh’s motion for summary
judgment is granted and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is denied. The Clerk of the
Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 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; therefore, in forma
pauperis status is denied for purposes of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,
444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
________________________________
JOSEPH F. BIANCO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 16, 2013
Central Islip, New York
3
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?