Saadeh v. Kagan

S.D. New York

Saadeh v. Kagan

DecidedMarch 3, 2022

Docket1:20-cv-01945

StatusUnknown

This text of Saadeh v. Kagan (Saadeh v. Kagan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Saadeh v. Kagan, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------X : RAFIC SAADEH, : : Plaintiff, : 20 Civ. 1945 (PAE) (SN) -v- : : OPINION & ORDER MICHAEL KAGAN et al., : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------------------------------------------------X

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Currently pending is defendant Joshua Kagan’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. See Dkts. 87, 89. Before the Court is the October 20, 2021 Report and Recommendation of the Hon. Sarah Netburn, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part the motion. Dkt. 124 (“Report”). The Court incorporates by reference the summary of the facts provided in the Report. For the following reasons, the Court adopts this recommendation. DISCUSSION In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Ruiz v. Citibank, N.A., No. 10 Civ. 5950 (KPF), 2014 WL 4635575, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014) (quoting King v. Greiner, No. 02 Civ. 5810 (DLC), 2009 WL 2001439, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009)); see also, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). As no party has submitted objections to the Report, review for clear error is appropriate. Careful review of Judge Netburn’s thorough and well-reasoned Report reveals no facial error in its conclusions; the Report is therefore adopted in its entirety. Because the Report explicitly states that failure to object within fourteen days will result in a waiver of objections and will

preclude appellate review, Report at 20, the parties’ failure to object operates as a waiver of appellate review, see Caidor v. Onondaga Cty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Small v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam)). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 87.

SO ORDERED. ____________________________ Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Judge

Dated: March 3, 2022 New York, New York

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------X : RAFIC SAADEH, : : Plaintiff, : 20 Civ. 1945 (PAE) (SN) -v- : : OPINION & ORDER MICHAEL KAGAN et al., : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------------------------------------------------X

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Currently pending is defendant Joshua Kagan’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. See Dkts. 87, 89. Before the Court is the October 20, 2021 Report and Recommendation of the Hon. Sarah Netburn, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part the motion. Dkt. 124 (“Report”). The Court incorporates by reference the summary of the facts provided in the Report. For the following reasons, the Court adopts this recommendation. DISCUSSION In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Ruiz v. Citibank, N.A., No. 10 Civ. 5950 (KPF), 2014 WL 4635575, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014) (quoting King v. Greiner, No. 02 Civ. 5810 (DLC), 2009 WL 2001439, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009)); see also, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). As no party has submitted objections to the Report, review for clear error is appropriate. Careful review of Judge Netburn’s thorough and well-reasoned Report reveals no facial error in its conclusions; the Report is therefore adopted in its entirety. Because the Report explicitly states that failure to object within fourteen days will result in a waiver of objections and will

preclude appellate review, Report at 20, the parties’ failure to object operates as a waiver of appellate review, see Caidor v. Onondaga Cty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Small v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam)). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 87.

SO ORDERED. ____________________________ Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Judge

Dated: March 3, 2022 New York, New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Saadeh v. Kagan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saadeh-v-kagan-nysd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack