Prisco v. Air Industries Group et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear error, adopts the R & R as the opinion of the Court. The Court denies plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. A telephone conference before the Cou rt is hereby scheduled for 11:45 AM on Thursday, June 29, 2017. Counsel for defendants is directed to initiate the conference call and, when counsel for all parties are on the line, contact the Court at 631-712-5600. So Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 6/23/2017. (Ortiz, Grisel)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------X
MICHELE PRISCO,

Plaintiffs,

FILED 
CLERK 

6/23/2017 4:45 pm

For Online Publication Only
U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
LONG ISLAND OFFICE 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
15-CV-7340 (JMA)(AYS)

-againstAIR INDUSTRIES GROUP, ET AL,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------X
AZRACK, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Michele Prisco brought this lawsuit against defendants Air Industries Group,
Welding Metallurgy, Inc., Peter D. Rettaliata, and Gary Settoducato, advancing claims of
employment discrimination. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and plaintiff filed
a cross-motion to amend the complaint. The Court referred both motions to the Honorable Anne
Y. Shields, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation. In a Report and
Recommendation dated June 8, 2017 (“the R & R”), Magistrate Judge Shields recommended that
the motion for leave to amend be denied.
No party has objected to the R & R, and the time for doing so has passed. When deciding
whether to adopt a report and recommendation, a district 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)(1). “To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely objection
has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record.” Jarvis v. N. Am. Globex Fund, L.P., 823 F. Supp. 2d 161, 163 (E.D.N.Y.2011) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear
error, adopts the R & R as the opinion of the Court. The Court denies plaintiff’s motion for leave

1

to amend.
A telephone conference before the Court is hereby scheduled for 11:45 AM on Thursday,
June 29, 2017. Counsel for defendants is directed to initiate the conference call and, when counsel
for all parties are on the line, contact the Court at 631-712-5600.
SO ORDERED.
Date: June 23, 2017
Central Islip, New York
_____/s/ (JMA)___________
Joan M. Azrack
United States District Judge

2