Sobieraj v. United States of America

Filing 37

DECISION AND ORDER adopting 33 Report and Recommendation, granting 21 defendant's motion for summary judgment, and dismissing 1 plaintiff's Complaint. The Clerk of Court shall close the file. Issued by Hon. John L. Sinatra, Jr. on 5/4/2020. (KLH)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

Case 1:17-cv-00616-JLS-MJR Document 37 Filed 05/04/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Walter Sobieraj,
Plaintiff,
v.

17-cv-616-JLS-MJR

United States of America,
Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 6, 2017, Plaintiff Walter Sobieraj commenced this action and brought
a negligence claim against Defendant United States of America pursuant to the
Federal Tort Claims Act. Dkt. 1. Defendant answered on September 22, 2017. Dkt.
4. On September 29, 2017, this Court1 referred this case to United States
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Dkt. 5.
On June 19, 2019, Defendant moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 21; see also
Dkts. 22-24. On March 12, 2020, Judge Roemer issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the motion for summary judgment be
granted. Dkt. 33. The parties did not object to the R&R, and the time to do so has
expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). On April 2, 2020, the

Judge Vilardo was originally assigned to this case and made the referral to
Magistrate Judge Roemer. On February 14, 2020, this case was reassigned to
Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. Dkt. 32.

1

Case 1:17-cv-00616-JLS-MJR Document 37 Filed 05/04/20 Page 2 of 3

Court directed the parties to provide a status report addressing whether the R&R
was ripe for review and whether the scheduled mediation had occurred. Dkt. 35.
Defendant filed a status report that same day, stating that, based on
communications with Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff did not intend to file objections to
the R&R. Dkt. 36. Plaintiff did not file a status report.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations
of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district
court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s
recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72
requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to
which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).
Although not required to do so in light of the above, this Court nevertheless
has reviewed Judge Roemer’s R&R as well as the parties’ submissions to him.
Based on that review and the absence of any objections, the Court accepts and
adopts Judge Roemer’s recommendation to grant Defendant’s motion.

2

Case 1:17-cv-00616-JLS-MJR Document 37 Filed 05/04/20 Page 3 of 3

For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment, Dkt. 21, is GRANTED. The Complaint, Dkt. 1, is
DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 4, 2020
Buffalo, New York

s/John L. Sinatra, Jr.
JOHN L. SINATRA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3