Berman v. Durkin et al

Filing 226

ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 225 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 218 ) is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 5/20/19. order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BARRY BERMAN,
Plaintiff,
-against-

9:13-CV-0136 (LEK/DJS)

CHARLES DURKIN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on April

26, 2019, by the Honorable Daniel J. Stewart, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 225 (“Report-Recommendation”).
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s

report-recommendation, the party “may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). If objections are
timely filed, a court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” § 636(b).
However, if no objections are made, a district court need review the report-recommendation only
for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y.
Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306–07, 306 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008),
abrogated on other grounds by Widomski v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Orange, 748 F.3d 471 (2d Cir.

2014). “A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” § 636(b).
III.

DISCUSSION
No objections were filed in the allotted time period. Accordingly, the Court has reviewed

the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none. The Court therefore adopts the
Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 225) is APPROVED and

ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 218) is
DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

May 20, 2019
Albany, New York

2