Hazel Shamberger v. Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners PLLC

E.D. New York

Hazel Shamberger v. Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners PLLC

District Court, E.D. New York·Decided December 19, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-01043·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

HAZEL SHAMBERGER,

Plaintiff, ORDER – against – 25-cv-01043 (NCM) (ARL)

ROBERTSON, ANSCHUTZ, SCHNEID, CRANE & PARTNERS PLLC,

Defendant.

NATASHA C. MERLE, United States District Judge:

This Court has received the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated November 20, 2025, from the Honorable Arlene R. Lindsay, United States Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 17. 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 Park v. Kim, No. 20-cv-02636, 2022 WL 3643966, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2022), aff’d, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024). 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-00371, 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, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to strike the motion to amend, ECF No. 13, and the motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 15, filed by non-party Gerald Shamberger from the docket. Plaintiff is reminded that only a party or an attorney representing a party may file papers in this action. See Wilburn v. Nguyen, No. 23-cv- 04082, 2023 WL 4163510, at *1 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. June 23, 2023) (“The Court cannot consider

submissions signed by non-parties to this action unless it is submitted by an attorney representing the party.”). Plaintiff is further reminded that she shall file a letter response of three pages or fewer to defendant’s letter requesting a premotion conference by December 29, 2025. See ECF Order dated November 25, 2025.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Natasha C. Merle NATASHA C. MERLE United States District Judge

Dated: December 19, 2025 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

HAZEL SHAMBERGER,

Plaintiff, ORDER – against – 25-cv-01043 (NCM) (ARL)

ROBERTSON, ANSCHUTZ, SCHNEID, CRANE & PARTNERS PLLC,

Defendant.

NATASHA C. MERLE, United States District Judge:

This Court has received the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated November 20, 2025, from the Honorable Arlene R. Lindsay, United States Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 17. 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 Park v. Kim, No. 20-cv-02636, 2022 WL 3643966, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2022), aff’d, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024). 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-00371, 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, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to strike the motion to amend, ECF No. 13, and the motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 15, filed by non-party Gerald Shamberger from the docket. Plaintiff is reminded that only a party or an attorney representing a party may file papers in this action. See Wilburn v. Nguyen, No. 23-cv- 04082, 2023 WL 4163510, at *1 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. June 23, 2023) (“The Court cannot consider

submissions signed by non-parties to this action unless it is submitted by an attorney representing the party.”). Plaintiff is further reminded that she shall file a letter response of three pages or fewer to defendant’s letter requesting a premotion conference by December 29, 2025. See ECF Order dated November 25, 2025.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Natasha C. Merle NATASHA C. MERLE United States District Judge

Dated: December 19, 2025 Brooklyn, New York

Hazel Shamberger v. Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners PLLC, (E.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Hazel Shamberger v. Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners PLLC (Hazel Shamberger v. Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners PLLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related