Walker v. Monica Rich Kosann

Filing 128

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 124 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. In addition, this Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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 the motions at Dkts. 97, 98, 100, and 111, to close this case, and to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. (And as further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on 3/7/2025) (jca) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
ANDREW WALKER, JR.,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
MONICA RICH KOSANN, AMAZON ADVERTISING :
LLC, EBAY, INC., FISHER-PRICE, INC.,
:
PROVENANCE GEMS, WOODROW JEWELERS,
:
NICKELODEON, DISNEY, WALMART, KMART, and :
KROGER COMPANY,
X

23-CV-4409 (AS)
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, United States District Judge:
The Court referred these motions to dismiss to Judge Willis for a Report and
Recommendation. See Dkt. 10. In the Report and Recommendation filed on January 8, 2025, Judge
Willis recommended that the motions be granted. See Dkt. 124.
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 standard also applies when a party makes only conclusory or general
objections, or simply reiterates their 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
fourteen days from service of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections, and it warned
that “[f]ailure to file objections within fourteen days will result in a waiver of objections and will
preclude appellate review,” citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72(b), and relevant
caselaw. See Dkt. 124. Walker understood the deadline, because he requested an extension of it to
February 4, 2025, which the Court granted. See Dkts. 125, 126. Nevertheless, as of the date of this
Order, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, Walker 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 complaint and the Report and
Recommendation, unguided by objections, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be well

reasoned and grounded in fact and law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is
ADOPTED in its entirety. 1
In addition, this Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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 the motions at Dkts. 97, 98, 100, and 111, to
close this case, and to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 7, 2025
New York, New York

__________________________________
ARUN SUBRAMANIAN
United States District Judge

The Report and Recommendation relies on Second Circuit law in its analysis of personal jurisdiction. See Dkt. 124
at 4-5. Because this case involves claims of patent infringement, the law of the Federal Circuit governs whether there
is personal jurisdiction over defendant Provenance Gems. See Akro Corp. v. Luker, 45 F.3d 1541, 1543 (Fed. Cir.
1995); Regeneron Pharms., Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 127 F.4th 896, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2025). However, the operative
standards are virtually identical in both circuits, see Grober v. Mako Prods., Inc., 686 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir.
2012), and the outcome is the same.
1

2