Gosselin v. Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: SO ORDERED that the R&R is adopted in its entirety. The Court grants the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denies the Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case. Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 4/18/2019. (Florio, Lisa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------X
RAYMOND E. GOSSELIN,
MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION & ORDER
2:16-cv-04391 (ADS)(AKT)

Plaintiff,
-againstSHEET METAL WORKERS’ NATIONAL
PENSION FUND,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:

Frumkin & Hunter LLP
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
1025 Westchester Avenue Suite 309
White Plains, NY 10604
By:
Elizabeth E. Hunter, Esq.,
William D. Frumkin, Esq., Of Counsel.

FILED 
CLERK 

4/18/2019 3:28 pm

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

Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan LLP
Attorneys for the Defendant
700 Sixth Street, Nw, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20001
By:
Nicholas Christakos, Esq.,
SPATT, District Judge:
On August 5, 2016, plaintiff Raymond Gosselin (the “Plaintiff”) commenced this action
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 et seq. (“ERISA”),
challenging the determination of the Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund (the
“Defendant” or “the Fund”) which denied him certain retirement benefits to which he claims he is
entitled.

1

The parties cross-moved for summary judgment and the Court referred both motions to
United States Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson for a recommendation as to whether the
motions should be granted.
On March 4, 2019, Judge Tomlinson issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that
the Court deny the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grant the Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment. Judge Tomlinson electronically served a copy of the R&R on all parties the
same day.
By motion of the Plaintiff, the court extended the time to file objections to the R&R to
April 1, 2019. It has been more than fourteen days since the passage of that deadline, and over a
month and a half since the service of the R&R. The parties have not filed objections at this point
in time.
As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this Court
has reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its
result. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015 WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without objections for clear error).
Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. The Court grants the Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment and denies the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of the
Court is respectfully directed to close this case.

2

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
April 18, 2019
___/s/ Arthur D. Spatt_______
ARTHUR D. SPATT
United States District Judge

3