Karim v. Bank of America, N.A.
Filing
18
ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss; adopting 15 Report and Recommendations. So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 9/23/11. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
______________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Bank of America, N.A.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________ )
Karima A. Karim,
C.A. No. 10-519 S
ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, United States District Judge.
Before
the
Court
is
Plaintiff's
Objection
to
Magistrate
Judge David L. Martin’s Report and Recommendation, dated May 6,
2011. (ECF No. 15.)
Magistrate Judge Martin recommended that
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted, and, to the extent
that Plaintiff sought judgment by default, recommended that the
request be denied.
by
a
magistrate
receipt.
Any objection to a Report and Recommendation
judge
must
be
filed
within
14
of
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); DRI LR CV 72(d).
Court’s review of such an objection is de novo.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
than
days
fourteen
days
its
This
See Fed. R.
Here the Plaintiff filed the Objection more
following
the
service
of
the
Report
and
Recommendation, thus waiving his right to review by the District
Court and the right to appeal the Court’s decision.
CV 72(d).
See DRI LR
The Court is, however, “solicitous of the obstacles that
pro
se
litigants
face
.
.
.
and
[will]
endeavor,
within
reasonable limits, to guard against the loss of pro se claims
due to technical defects.”
(1st Cir. 2008).
Dutil v. Murphy, 550 F.3d 154, 158
After review of the Report and Recommendation,
Plaintiff’s Objection, and Defendant’s response, the Court finds
that the clear and thorough analysis set forth in the Report and
Recommendation
is
applicable law.
supported
by
the
factual
record
and
the
The Court further finds that the arguments in
the Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation are
merely reiterative of those set forth in earlier filings and are
without merit.
Therefore, the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate
accepted
Judge
David
L.
Martin
filed
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
§
Defendant’s
motion
to
dismiss
is
/s/ William E. Smith
William E. Smith
United States District Judge
Date: September 23, 2011
2
May
636(b)(1).
GRANTED,
requested judgment by default is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED:
on
and
6,
2011,
is
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?