Bar v. Marly Building Supply Corp.

E.D. New York

Bar v. Marly Building Supply Corp.

DecidedSeptember 21, 2023

Docket1:19-cv-01187

StatusUnknown

This text of Bar v. Marly Building Supply Corp. (Bar v. Marly Building Supply Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bar v. Marly Building Supply Corp., (E.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CARLOS AMAY BAR, 19-CV-1187 (ARR) Plaintiff, Opinion & Order — against — Not for electronic or print MARLY BUILDING SUPPLY CORP., KIM KUM MA, publication TOMMIE SUI, and U-C RENOVATOIN INC.,

Defendants.

ROSS, United States District Judge: This Court has received the Report and Recommendation on the instant case dated August 1, 2023, from the Honorable Peggy Kuo, United States Magistrate Judge. No objections have been filed. The Court reviews “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). Where no timely 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)). Having reviewed the record, I find no clear error. I therefore adopt the Report and Recommendation, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement is denied. SO ORDERED.

_______/s/________________ Allyne R. Ross United States District Judge

Dated: September 21, 2023 Brooklyn, New York

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) Plaintiff, Opinion & Order — against — Not for electronic or print MARLY BUILDING SUPPLY CORP., KIM KUM MA, publication TOMMIE SUI, and U-C RENOVATOIN INC.,

Defendants.

ROSS, United States District Judge: This Court has received the Report and Recommendation on the instant case dated August 1, 2023, from the Honorable Peggy Kuo, United States Magistrate Judge. No objections have been filed. The Court reviews “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). Where no timely 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)). Having reviewed the record, I find no clear error. I therefore adopt the Report and Recommendation, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement is denied. SO ORDERED.

_______/s/________________ Allyne R. Ross United States District Judge

Dated: September 21, 2023 Brooklyn, New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bar v. Marly Building Supply Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bar-v-marly-building-supply-corp-nyed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack