Tanza et al v. Garda Security, Inc. et al

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, and having reviewed the R & R for clear error, the Court adopts Judge Shields's R & R, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court. So Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 8/23/2017. (Ortiz, Grisel)

FILED 
CLERK 

8/23/2017  2:39 pm
U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
LONG ISLAND OFFICE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
ANTHONY TANZA, et al.,

For Online Publication Only
ORDER
15–CV–4394 (JMA) (AYS)

Plaintiffs,
v.

GARDA CL ATLANTIC, INC.,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
ANTHONY TANZA, et al.,
17–CV–3185 (JMA) (AYS)
Plaintiffs,
v.

GARDA CL ATLANTIC, INC.,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
JEAN-PARNELL LOUIS, et al.,
17–CV–3186 (JMA) (AYS)
Plaintiffs,
v.

GARDA CL ATLANTIC, INC.,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
AZRACK, United States District Judge:
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) from Magistrate Judge Anne
Y. Shields recommending, with the consent of the parties, that the district court consolidate these
three cases for the limited purpose of discovery and without prejudice to make a further motion
for consolidation at a later time. In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a
1

court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or . . . recommendations
to which objection[s] [are] made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Brown v. Ebert, No. 05–CV–
5579, 2006 WL 3851152, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2006). The court “may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). Those portions of a report and recommendation to which there is no specific
reasoned objection are reviewed for clear error. See Pall Corp. v. Entegris, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 48,
51 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
The R & R was issued on July 10, 2017. At that time, all of the parties consented to the
recommendations. None of the parties have subsequently objected to the R & R, and the time for
filing objections has passed. Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law,
and having reviewed the R & R for clear error, the Court adopts Judge Shields’s R & R, in its
entirety, as the opinion of the Court.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 23, 2017
Central Islip, New York

/s/
JMA
JOAN M. AZRACK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2