Deodat v. Mercer (US) Inc. et al

Filing 108

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 100 Report and Recommendations, 77 Motion to Expedite filed by Anita Deodat. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to seek equitable relief (which is mentioned only in the tit le of the motion), the present motion is not the proper way to amend the complaint, particularly given that it would be the third amendment to the complaint. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's mo tion is DENIED. This Court certifies, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is thus denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U. S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 77. The Clerk of Court is also directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/19/2018) (ne) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
ANITA DEODAT,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
MERCER (US), INC., and MARSH & MCLENNAN
:
COMPANIES,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

17-CV-7288 (JMF)
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

JESSE M. FURMAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff’s motion for an “expedited order of injunctive relief and other equitable relief”
(Docket No. 77) was referred to Magistrate Judge Wang for a Report and Recommendation. In a
Report and Recommendation filed on October 4, 2018, Magistrate Judge Wang recommended
that the motion be denied without prejudice. (Docket No. 100).
In reviewing 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)(C). A district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also United
States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). To accept those portions of the report to
which no timely objection has been made, however, a district court need only satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record. See, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F.
Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). This clearly erroneous standard also applies when a party
makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments. See,
e.g., Ortiz v. Barkley, 558 F. Supp. 2d 444, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

In the present case, the Report and Recommendation advised the parties that they had 14
days from service of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections, and warned that
failure to timely file such objections would result in waiver of any right to object. (See Docket
No. 100). In addition, it expressly called the parties’ attention to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Nevertheless, as of the date
of this Order, no objections have been filed and no request for an extension of time to object has
been made. Accordingly, Plaintiff has waived the right to object to the Report and
Recommendation or to obtain appellate review. See Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d
Cir. 1992); see also Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2008).
Despite the waiver, the Court has reviewed the petition and the Report and
Recommendation, unguided by objections, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be well
reasoned and grounded in fact and law. The Report and Recommendation correctly points out
that the arguments and evidence Plaintiff submits in her motion for injunctive relief are more
properly submitted in relation to any motion for summary judgment filed in this case, the
scheduled for which this Court has already set. (See Docket Nos. 105, 106). To the extent that
Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to seek equitable relief (which is mentioned only in the
title of the motion), the present motion is not the proper way to amend the complaint, particularly
given that it would be the third amendment to the complaint. Accordingly, the Report and
Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
This Court certifies, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1915(a)(3), that
any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is thus
denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

2

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 77. The Clerk of Court is also
directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 19, 2018
New York, New York

3