Smart 7 Corporation v. United States

District Court, W.D. New York

Smart 7 Corporation v. United States

Trial Court Opinion

STATES DISTR] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EL FILED Le WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK » PA AUG 18 2024 Xa ws Lye Se toewengut SO SMART 7 CORPORATION, STERN SeanCT oc’

Plaintiff, 23-CV-653 (JLS) (MJR) v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE,

Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, a retail grocery store, commenced this action on July 6, 2023. Dkt. 1. It seeks judicial review, pursuant to

7 C.F.R. § 279.7

and

7 U.S.C. § 20238

, ofa decision by the United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, to revoke Plaintiffs Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participation eligibility. See

id.

[| 1, 29. This Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under

28 U.S.C. §§ 636

(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 4. On September 11, 2023, Defendants moved to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Dkt. 3. Plaintiff opposed the motion, Dkt. 5, and Defendants replied. Dkt. 6. On July 10, 2024, Judge Roemer issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court dismiss the Complaint, with prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. 9 at 11-12. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge.

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. See

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither

28 U.S.C. § 636

nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140, 149-50

(1985). This Court carefully reviewed the R&R and the relevant record. Based on that review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Roemer’s recommendation. Thus, for the reasons stated above and in the R&R, Defendants’ [3] motion is GRANTED, and the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 13, 2024 Buffalo, New York cal we ( JOHN/L. SINATRA, JR. UNMED STATES DISTRICT JU

Reference

Status
Unknown