Boyd v. Petralis et al

Filing 83

ORDER adopting 82 Report and Recommendations; denying 61 Motion to Amend or Correct. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 03/29/2019. (CDH) (A copy of this Order was mailed to Plaintiff)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MAR 2 9 2019

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NYJEE L. BOYD,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
V.

6:I6-CV-06286 EAW

DEPUTY VINCENT PETRALIS,
DEPUTY ADAM GEIGER, MAJOR
HORAN,CAPTAIN KENNEDY,
CORPAL. LOPEZ, and SERGEANT
LATONA,
Defendants.

This case was referred for all pretrial matters excluding dispositive motions to
United States Magistrate Judge Marian W.Payson pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (Dkt.

8).

Magistrate Judge Payson issued a thorough Report and Recommendation

recommending that Plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint to add seven newlyidentified defendants (Dkt. 61) be denied (Dkt. 82).
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties had 14
days after being served a copy of the Report and Recommendation to file objections. No
objections were filed. The Court is not required to review de novo those portions of a

report and recommendation to which objections were not filed. See Mario v. P & C Food

Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002)("Where parties receive clear notice of the
consequences, failure [to timely] object to a magistrate's report and recommendation
operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate's decision.").

- I -

Notwithstanding the lack of objections, the Court has conducted a careful review of

the Report and Recommendation as well as the filings previously made in the case, and

finds no reason to reject or modify the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Payson. For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation(Dkt. 82),this Court

denies Plaintiffs motion to amend the Complaint to add seven newly-identified
defendants. (Dkt. 61).
SO ORDERED.

States District Judge
Dated:

March 29, 2019
Rochester, New York