No. 15 Civ. 8427 (PAC)(HBP).

ANNE BRYANT, Plaintiff, v. PATRICK J. MONAGHAN, JR., ESQ., et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity Action
Nature of Suit: 370 Other Fraud
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Anne Bryant, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Patrick J. Monaghan Jr, Esq, Defendant, Pro Se.

Patrick J Monaghan Jr, Esq, Defendant, represented by Urban S. Mulvehill , O'Neill, DiManno & Kelly.


PAUL A. CROTTY, District Judge.

Pro se plaintiff Anne Bryant ("Plaintiff") moves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief from the Court's April 11, 2016 order, Dkt. 44, so-ordering Plaintiff's April 8, 2016 voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the action against defendant Noel L. Silverman, Esq. ("Silverman") pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Dkt. 85. Plaintiff moves on the ground that there is new evidence she first discovered in August 2016. See id.

On May 23, 2017, Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman issued a thorough Report and Recommendation (the "R&R"), recommending that Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion be denied as untimely as it was made more than one year after the April 11, 2016 order from which she seeks relief. Dkt. 90. The R&R advised the parties that they had fourteen days from receipt of the R&R to file any written objections, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and warned that failure to do so would result in a waiver of any objections and preclude appellate review. Id. at 4. Nearly a month has passed since the R&R was issued, and no objections or requests for extensions have been submitted to the Court. The right to object to the R&R or obtain further judicial review of Magistrate Judge Pitman's decision is waived. See Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985).

The 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). "To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, 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." Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y.1985). The Court has reviewed the well-reasoned R&R for clear error and finds none. Thus, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in full and DENIES Plaintiff's motion.

The reference to Magistrate Judge Pitman is continued. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at Dkt. 85 in this case.



1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases