Solak v. Topix, LLC et al
DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 27 Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 2/28/17. (lmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS W. DRAZEN
Counsel for Plaintiff
2-8 Hawley Street, Suite 11
Binghamton, New York 13901
DOUGLAS W. DRAZEN, ESQ.
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in action by John Solak (“Plaintiff”) against John Doe
(“Defendant”) asserting claims arising from Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant published false
statements concerning Plaintiff’s health in an internet discussion forum, is United States
Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles’ Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s
Complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (Dkt. No. 27.)
Objections to the Report-Recommendation have not been filed and the deadline in which to do
so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing all of the papers in this action, including Magistrate Judge
Peebles’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-
Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Peebles employed the proper legal standards, accurately
recited the facts, and correctly applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 27.) As a result, the
Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein,
and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Peebles’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 27) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
Dated: February 28, 2017
Syracuse, New York
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge
When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation to only a “clear error” review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory
Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a clear error review, “the court need
only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a
magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are
not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
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?