Ocasio et al v. Azamzhanovich et al

Filing 19

DECISION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated, the Court adopts United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthys 18 Report and Recommendation in full, and this action is hereby REMANDED to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie . The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit this Decision and Order to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie, and close this case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 4/2/18. (JO)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ELIZABETH OCASIO and DANNY OCASIO,
Plaintiffs,
Case #17-CV-620-FPG
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
AVAZZHON N. AZAMZHANOVICH, VELOCITY
TRANS. INC. and GENERAL LEASE, LLC,
Defendants.

On July 6, 2017, Defendants Avazzhon N. Azamzhanovich, Velocity Trans. Inc., and
General Lease, LLC, removed this case from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of Erie, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). See ECF No. 1. Defendants answered the Complaint on
October 17, 2017. ECF No. 2. The Court then ordered Defendants to show cause why the case
should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction regarding the amount
in controversy. ECF No. 4. Defendants responded to the Order and the Court found they had
established the amount in controversy. ECF Nos. 5-6. The Court then referred the case to United
States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for “all pretrial matters excluding dispositive
motions.” ECF No. 7.
On January 10, 2018, Judge McCarthy ordered Defendants to show cause why the case
should not remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction regarding diversity of
citizenship. ECF No. 13. Defendants responded to the Order. ECF Nos. 15-16. After reviewing
Defendants’ materials, Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on
February 15, 2018, finding that Defendants had not established diversity of citizenship between
the parties and recommending that this Court remand the action to the Supreme Court for the State

of New York, Erie County, for further proceedings. ECF No. 18 at 5. To date, Defendants have
not filed objections or responded to Judge McCarthy’s R&R.
Generally, the Court reviews portions of the R&R to which a party makes specific
objections de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When a party does not
object to the R&R, however, the Court will review the R&R for clear error. EEOC v. AZ Metro
Distributors, LLC, 272 F. Supp. 3d 336, 339 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (quoting Dafeng Hengwei Textile
Co. v. Aceco Indus. & Commercial Corp., 54 F. Supp. 3d 279, 283 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)). “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.” Boice v. M+W U.S., Inc., 130
F. Supp. 3d 677, 686 (N.D.N.Y. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
After conducting the appropriate review, the 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).
The Court has reviewed Judge McCarthy’s R&R and finds no clear error. Accordingly,
the Court adopts Judge McCarthy’s R&R in full and this action is hereby REMANDED to the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie. The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit
this Decision and Order to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Erie, and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 2, 2018
Rochester, New York
______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court

-2-