Bricklayers Insurance And Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Supplemental Annuity Fund, Bricklayers And Trowel Trades International Pension Fund, New York City And Long Island Joint Apprenticeship And Traini v. LaSala
Bricklayers Insurance And Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Supplemental Annuity Fund, Bricklayers And Trowel Trades International Pension Fund, New York City And Long Island Joint Apprenticeship And Traini v. LaSala
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK nanan nnn nnn nnn etn XK BRICKLAYERS INSURANCE AND WELFARE FUND, BRICKLAYERS PENSION FUND, BRICKLAYERS SUPPLEMENTAL ANNUITY FUND, BRICKLAYERS AND TROWEL TRADES INTERNATIONAL PENSION FUND, NEW YORK CITY AND LONG ISLAND JOINT APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING FUND, INTERNATIONAL MASONRY INSTITUTE, and JEREMIAH SULLIVAN, JR., in his fiduciary capacity as Administrator, BRICKLAYERS LOCAL 1, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED CRAFT WORKERS, Plaintiffs, -against- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 12-CV-2314 (FB) (RLM) KENNETH LASALA, MARK LASALA, KENNETH LASALA, JR., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and PLAZA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendants. oe een ee ee a
BLOCK, Senior District Judge: On January 22, 2020, Magistrate Judge Mann issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that funds held by the Court be disbursed
in accordance with a proposed consent order. The R&R advised that objections
were due by February 5, 2020, and warned that “[flailure to file objections in a timely
manner may waive a right to appeal the District Court order.” R&R at 10-11. The
R&R was electronically served on all parties. No objections have been filed. Where clear notice has been given of the consequences of failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review.
See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149-50(1985); Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc.,
313 F.3d 758, 766(2d Cir. 2002) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation
operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.”). The
Court will, however, excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it
appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error. See Spence v.
Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility,
219 F.3d 162, 174(2d Cir. 2000). No error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face of the R&R, so the Court
adopts it without de novo review. The signed consent order will be filed forthwith. An 4 f) SO ORDERED. id Frederic Block . EREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York February 25, 2019
Reference
- Status
- Unknown