Sojka v. Mudge

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED JULIAN SOJKA, DOC # DATE FILED: _ 8/4/2025 □□ Plaintiff, -against- 23 Civ. 3741 (AT) (RFT) STERLING MUDGE, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND Defendant. RECOMMENDATION ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: Plaintiff, Julian Sojka, brings this action against Defendant pro se, Sterling Mudge, alleging civil battery, assault, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. Mudge moved to dismiss the complaint for, inter alia, lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. ECF Nos. 30-31. The Court referred the motion to the Honorable Robyn F. Tarnofksy. ECF No. 36. After careful consideration, Judge Tarnofsky issued a report (the “R&R”) recommending that Mudge’s motion to dismiss be granted, without prejudice, for lack of personal jurisdiction. R&R at 33, ECF No. 53. Judge Tarnofsky also recommended that leave to amend the complaint be denied. See id. at 31-33. Despite notification of the right to object to the R&R, no objections were filed, and the time to do so has passed. See id. at 33-34; Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), 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 in Judge Tarmofsky’s thorough and well-reasoned R&R. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Tarnofsky’s R&R in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 30 and close the case. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 4, 2025 New York, New York

ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge