Hurd v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. New York
• Decided: July 8, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-03451
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RICHARD HURD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, 22-CV-3451 (ARR) (AYS)

Plaintiff, Opinion & Order

— against — Not for electronic or print publication AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA., INC.,

Defendant.

ROSS, United States District Judge: This Court has received the Report and Recommendation on the instant case dated April 3, 2024, from the Honorable Anne Y. Shields, 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, this action is dismissed for lack of prosecution, with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Civil Rule of Procedure 41(b). SO ORDERED.

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

Dated: July 8, 2024 Brooklyn, New York