KBM Worldwide, Inc. v. Hangover Joe's Holding Corporation et al

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - No objections to Magistrate Judge Brown's 2/1/2017 Report have been filed, and the deadline to object is expired. Upon review, the Court is satisfied that the Report is not facially erroneous. Therefore Magistrate Judge Brown's Report is adopted in its entirety, and Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is denied. SO Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 2/21/2017. (Tirado, Chelsea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------X
KBM WORLDWIDE, INC.,
Plaintiff,

FILED 
CLERK 

1:03 pm, Feb 21, 2017

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
LONG ISLAND OFFICE 

ORDER
15-cv-7254 (SJF)(GRB)

-againstHANGOVER JOE’S HOLDING CORP. and
MATTHEW VEAL,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------X
FEUERSTEIN, District Judge:

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown’s February 1, 2017 Report
and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that Defendants Hangover Joe’s Holding
Corp. and Matthew Veal’s (together, “Defendants”) motion for summary judgment pursuant to
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure be denied. See Docket Entry (“DE”) [24]. For
the reasons set forth herein, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Brown’s Report in its entirety.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, a magistrate judge may conduct proceedings of dispositive
pretrial matters without the consent of the parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The district court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations of the magistrate
judge. DeLuca v. Lord, 858 F. Supp. 1330, 1345 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Where there are no specific written objections to a magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation, the district court may accept the findings contained therein as long as the
factual and legal bases supporting the findings are not clearly erroneous. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 150, 106 S. Ct. 466, 472 (1985). Therefore, to accept the report and recommendation of a
magistrate judge on a dispositive matter to which no timely objection has been made, the district

1

court need only be satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b); Johnson v. Goord, 487 F. Supp. 2d 377, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), aff’d, 305 F. App’x 815
(2d Cir. 2009); Baptichon v. Nevada State Bank, 304 F. Supp. 2d 451, 453 (E.D.N.Y. 2004), aff’d,
125 F. App’x 374 (2d Cir. 2005).
No objections to Magistrate Judge Brown’s February 1, 2017 Report have been filed, and
the deadline to object has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring that objections be filed
within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of the report and recommendation); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Upon review, the Court is satisfied that the Report is not facially erroneous.
Therefore, Magistrate Judge Brown’s Report is adopted in its entirety, and Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is denied.

Dated: Central Islip, New York
February 21, 2017

SO ORDERED.
s/ Sandra J. Feuerstein
Sandra J. Feuerstein
United States District Judge

2