Hughes v. Constantine

E.D. New York

Hughes v. Constantine

DecidedSeptember 3, 2021

Docket2:11-cv-02692

StatusUnknown

This text of Hughes v. Constantine (Hughes v. Constantine) 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

Hughes v. Constantine, (E.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK eee een ee eee ener THEODORE R. HUGHES, ETHEL KAISER, : NICK PRIVITELLO, ROBERT J. RIZZI, : Plaintiffs, : : ORDER ADOPTING REPORT : AND RECOMMENDATION -against- : 11-CV-2692 (JFB) (JIMW) . FILED TOMMY CONSTANTINE (f/k/a Tommy : CLERK Hormotvitis), 3:58 pm, Sep 02, 2021 Defendant. . U.S. DISTRICT COURT . EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK . LONG ISLAND OFFICE nen enna eeenemennene XK

JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judge (sitting by designation): On June 3, 2011, plaintiffs filed the complaint in this action against defendant Tommy Constantine. On March 5, 2019, Magistrate Judge Shields! issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R,” ECF No. 54), recommending that the case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (See R&R, at 7.) The R&R instructed that any objections to the R&R be submitted within fourteen (14) days of service of the R&R. (Ud) No objections have been filed to date, although the date for filing such objections has expired. The Court has also received no communications from the parties since February 10, 2017. (ECF No. 53.) A district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. See DeLuca v. Lord, 858 F. Supp. 1330, 1345 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); Walker v. Hood, 679 F. Supp. 372, 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). As to those portions of a report to which no “specific written objections” are made, the Court may accept the findings

' On May 24, 2021, this case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Wicks.

contained therein, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings are not clearly erroneous. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., 956 F. Supp. 509, 513 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, and having reviewed the R&R for clear error, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the R&R in their entirety.2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the case is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

SO QRDEREDS /s/Joseph F. Bianco

IGSEPH F. BIANCO □ WNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE {sitting by designation) Dated: September a 2021 Central Islip, NY

2 Even under a de novo standard of review, the Court would adopt the R&R in its entirety for the same reasons contained in the R&R.

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 eee een ee eee ener THEODORE R. HUGHES, ETHEL KAISER, : NICK PRIVITELLO, ROBERT J. RIZZI, : Plaintiffs, : : ORDER ADOPTING REPORT : AND RECOMMENDATION -against- : 11-CV-2692 (JFB) (JIMW) . FILED TOMMY CONSTANTINE (f/k/a Tommy : CLERK Hormotvitis), 3:58 pm, Sep 02, 2021 Defendant. . U.S. DISTRICT COURT . EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK . LONG ISLAND OFFICE nen enna eeenemennene XK

JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judge (sitting by designation): On June 3, 2011, plaintiffs filed the complaint in this action against defendant Tommy Constantine. On March 5, 2019, Magistrate Judge Shields! issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R,” ECF No. 54), recommending that the case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (See R&R, at 7.) The R&R instructed that any objections to the R&R be submitted within fourteen (14) days of service of the R&R. (Ud) No objections have been filed to date, although the date for filing such objections has expired. The Court has also received no communications from the parties since February 10, 2017. (ECF No. 53.) A district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. See DeLuca v. Lord, 858 F. Supp. 1330, 1345 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); Walker v. Hood, 679 F. Supp. 372, 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). As to those portions of a report to which no “specific written objections” are made, the Court may accept the findings

' On May 24, 2021, this case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Wicks.

contained therein, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings are not clearly erroneous. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., 956 F. Supp. 509, 513 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, and having reviewed the R&R for clear error, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the R&R in their entirety.2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the case is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

SO QRDEREDS /s/Joseph F. Bianco

IGSEPH F. BIANCO □ WNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE {sitting by designation) Dated: September a 2021 Central Islip, NY

2 Even under a de novo standard of review, the Court would adopt the R&R in its entirety for the same reasons contained in the R&R.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hughes v. Constantine, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-constantine-nyed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack