UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Ko Rae WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK gS By FEB 13 2025 TIMOTHY ECKERT We Bc Lorwengutl BX SSTERN DISTRICTS Plaintiff, Vv. 24-CV-1203 (JLS) (MJR) MICHAEL PAUL, WILLIAM NELSON, AUGUSTUS BATCHO, CHAD LASHER, CORY LASHER, CARMELO ARROYO, LOUIS MALONE, JOHN DOE 1-4, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Timothy Eckert commenced an action in Supreme Court, Niagara County, on October 25, 2024 asserting claims against Defendants arising out of his employment at General Motors in Lockport, New York. See Dkt. 1-1. Defendants removed the action to this Court on December 6, 2024. Dkt. 1. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all proceedings under

(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 4. Plaintiff filed the following motions: e A Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 9);! e A Motion for Expedited Hearing (Dkt. 10); e A Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 12);

1 On December 16, 2024, Judge Roemer denied Plaintiffs [9] motion and converted it to a motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. 16.

e A Motion Alleging Fraud upon the Court by Defendants’ Counsel (Dkt. 13); e A Motion to Challenge Defendants’ Removal as Procedurally Improper and Abusive (Dkt. 14); e A Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 15); e A Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 18); e A Motion to Introduce Omitted State Court Documents into the Record (Dkt. 24); and e A Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration (Dkt. 30). Defendants opposed Plaintiffs’ motions, Dkt. 22-23, and Plaintiff replied. Dkt. 26-28. On January 7, 2025, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) addressing Plaintiffs motions. Dkt. 31. He recommends that “each of Plaintiffs motions be denied.”

. Plaintiff objected to the R&R. See Dkt. 32, 38, 39, 40. Specifically, he objects to the R&R’s recommendations to deny Plaintiffs requests: e For Injunctive Relief; e For Reconsideration and Request for Entry of Default Against Defendant Arroyo; e To Find that Defendants Committed Fraud Upon the Court; and e To Introduce Omitted State Court Documents. See

Defendants opposed the objections, Dkt. 44, and Plaintiff replied. Dkt. 45. A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). A district court

must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. See

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

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,

(1985). This Court has carefully reviewed the R&R, the objections, and the relevant record. Based on its de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Roemer’s recommendations. As such, Plaintiffs motions at Dkt. 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 24, and 30 are DENIED. The case is referred back to Judge Roemer in accordance with the December 10, 2024 referral order. See Dkt. 4.

SO ORDERED. Dated: February 13, 2025 Buffalo, New York ! po A. f thas, J.

JOHNL.SINATRA,JR > UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE