Sheinfeld v. B. Braun Medical Inc.

S.D. New York

Sheinfeld v. B. Braun Medical Inc.

DecidedFebruary 20, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-01622

StatusUnknown

This text of Sheinfeld v. B. Braun Medical Inc. (Sheinfeld v. B. Braun Medical Inc.) 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

Sheinfeld v. B. Braun Medical Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DAVID N. SHEINFELD, DOC #; —______ DATE FILED: 2/20/2024 Plaintiff, -against- 23 Civ. 1622 (AT) (OTW) B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC., et al., ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND Defendants. RECOMMENDATION ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: On February 24, 2023, pro se Plaintiff, David N. Sheinfeld, filed this products liability action for failure to warn, design defects, and manufacturing defects in connection with an artificial disc replacement medical device for patients with degenerative disc disease. ECF No. 1. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and (b)(2). ECF No. 9. On April 14, 2023, the Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for a report and recommendation. ECF No. 11. After careful consideration, Judge Wang issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), proposing that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and that Plaintiff be given an opportunity to move to amend his complaint. R&R at 11, ECF No. 32. Despite notification of the right to object to the R&R, no objections were filed, and the time to do so has passed. See R&R at 12; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). When no objection is made, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Santiago v. Colvin, 12 Civ. 7052, 2014 WL 1092967, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2014). The Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Wang’s R&R in its entirety. By March 19, 2024, Plaintiff may request to amend his complaint to allege facts that (1) “the specific activL Device implanted in his spine was defective as a result of some mishap in the manufacturing process itself, improper workmanship, or because defective materials were used in construction”; and (2) “the defect was the cause of his injury.” R&R at 11-12. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 9 and mail a copy of the R&R and this order to pro se Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 20, 2024 New York, New York

ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

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

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DAVID N. SHEINFELD, DOC #; —______ DATE FILED: 2/20/2024 Plaintiff, -against- 23 Civ. 1622 (AT) (OTW) B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC., et al., ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND Defendants. RECOMMENDATION ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: On February 24, 2023, pro se Plaintiff, David N. Sheinfeld, filed this products liability action for failure to warn, design defects, and manufacturing defects in connection with an artificial disc replacement medical device for patients with degenerative disc disease. ECF No. 1. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and (b)(2). ECF No. 9. On April 14, 2023, the Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for a report and recommendation. ECF No. 11. After careful consideration, Judge Wang issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), proposing that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and that Plaintiff be given an opportunity to move to amend his complaint. R&R at 11, ECF No. 32. Despite notification of the right to object to the R&R, no objections were filed, and the time to do so has passed. See R&R at 12; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). When no objection is made, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Santiago v. Colvin, 12 Civ. 7052, 2014 WL 1092967, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2014). The Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Wang’s R&R in its entirety. By March 19, 2024, Plaintiff may request to amend his complaint to allege facts that (1) “the specific activL Device implanted in his spine was defective as a result of some mishap in the manufacturing process itself, improper workmanship, or because defective materials were used in construction”; and (2) “the defect was the cause of his injury.” R&R at 11-12. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 9 and mail a copy of the R&R and this order to pro se Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 20, 2024 New York, New York

ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sheinfeld v. B. Braun Medical Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheinfeld-v-b-braun-medical-inc-nysd-2024.