Brutus v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. New York
• Decided: April 15, 2024
• Docket: 1:14-cv-05656
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JOVELYN BRUTUS, 14-CV-5656 (ARR) (JAM) Plaintiff, NOT FOR ELECTRONIC OR — against — PRINT PUBLICATION

PATHMARK STORES, INC., and PATHMARK OF JUDGMENT SPRINGFIELD GARDENS #616,

Defendants.

ROSS, United States District Judge: This Court has received the Report and Recommendation on the instant case dated March 28, 2024, from the Honorable Joseph A. Marutollo, United States Magistrate Judge. See R. & R., ECF No. 45. 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 Est. of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imps. 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, I dismiss this action without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. SO ORDERED.

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

Dated: April 15, 2024 Brooklyn, New York