Bar v. Marly Building Supply Corp.

E.D. New York

Bar v. Marly Building Supply Corp.

District Court, E.D. New York·Decided July 22, 2021·No. 1:19-cv-01187·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CARLOS AMAY BAR, 19-CV-1187 (ARR) (PK) Plaintiff,

— against — NOT FOR PRINT OR ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION MARLY BUILDING SUPPLY CORP et al.,

Defendants. OPINION & ORDER

ROSS, United States District Judge: I have received the Report and Recommendation, dated July 6, 2021, from the Honorable Peggy Kuo, United States Magistrate Judge. I review “de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also Brissett v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth., No. 09-CV-874 (CBA) (LB), 2011 WL 1930682, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2011), aff’d, 472 F. App’x 73 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order). But where no proper objections have been filed, “the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Finley v. Trans Union, Experian, Equifax, No. 17-CV- 0371 (LDH) (LB), 2017 WL 4838764, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2017) (quoting Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imports Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)). No objections have been filed and, having reviewed the record, I find no clear error. I therefore adopt Judge Kuo’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the motion for settlement approval pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015), is granted, and the settlement is approved. SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2021 _______/s/________________ Brooklyn, New York Allyne R. Ross United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CARLOS AMAY BAR, 19-CV-1187 (ARR) (PK) Plaintiff,

— against — NOT FOR PRINT OR ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION MARLY BUILDING SUPPLY CORP et al.,

Defendants. OPINION & ORDER

ROSS, United States District Judge: I have received the Report and Recommendation, dated July 6, 2021, from the Honorable Peggy Kuo, United States Magistrate Judge. I review “de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also Brissett v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth., No. 09-CV-874 (CBA) (LB), 2011 WL 1930682, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2011), aff’d, 472 F. App’x 73 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order). But where no proper objections have been filed, “the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Finley v. Trans Union, Experian, Equifax, No. 17-CV- 0371 (LDH) (LB), 2017 WL 4838764, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2017) (quoting Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imports Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)). No objections have been filed and, having reviewed the record, I find no clear error. I therefore adopt Judge Kuo’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the motion for settlement approval pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015), is granted, and the settlement is approved. SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2021 _______/s/________________ Brooklyn, New York Allyne R. Ross United States District Judge

Bar v. Marly Building Supply Corp., (E.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Bar v. Marly Building Supply Corp. (Bar v. Marly Building Supply Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related