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