Caroline Kosh v. Brian Michael Quinn, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CAROLINE KOSH, Plaintiff, 25-CV-4603 (JPO) -v- ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND BRIAN MICHAEL QUINN, et al., RECOMMENDATION Defendants.

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: On May 23, 2025, Plaintiff Caroline Kosh, proceeding pro se, brought suit against Defendants Brian Michael Quinn and Salvatore E.A. Vulcano, alleging that Defendants scammed Kosh out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. (ECF No. 1.) On June 5, 2025, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky. (ECF No. 3.) On July 8, 2025, Judge Tarnofsky issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court order Kosh to submit an amended complaint (ECF No. 6), which the Court adopted on July 30, 2025 (ECF No. 7). Kosh filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2025 (ECF No. 8), which Defendants moved to dismiss on October 29, 2025 (ECF No. 13). On December 19, 2025, after holding a conference on the motion to dismiss, Judge Tarnofsky issued an R&R recommending that the Court transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, where venue is proper. (ECF No. 15.) Objections to that R&R were due by January 2, 2026, and no objections were filed. Because no party filed a timely objection to the R&R, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee’s Notes (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); see also Borcsok v. Early, 299 F. App’x 76, 77 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order). Having done so, the Court determines that Judge Tarnofsky’s well-reasoned R&R presents no errors, clear or otherwise, and therefore fully adopts it. Accordingly, the Court hereby transfers this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). See United States ex rel. Donohue v. Carranza, 585 F. Supp. 3d 383, 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (“The district court may exercise the discretion to transfer a case even if a defendant has not requested transfer.”); SongByrd, Inc. v. Est. of Grossman, 206 F.3d 172, 179 n.9 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[T]he Supreme Court ... made clear that a district court lacking . . . proper venue could transfer [sua sponte] under section 1406(a).”). The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York immediately. The seven-day waiting period provided in Local Rule 83.1 is waived. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 23, 2026 New York, New York

United States District Judge