Timothy Eckert v. Michael Paul, William Nelson, Augustus Batcho, Chad Lasher,...

SAAIES DISTRICF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT KD FILED LOY WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK cS ———— MAY 2 6 2026 ; i.

TIMOTHY ECKERT, Behe n oer SEY STERN DISTRICL Plaintiff, v. 24-CV-1203 (JLS) (MJR) MICHAEL PAUL, WILLIAM NELSON, AUDUSTUS BATCHO, CHAD LASHER, CORY LASHER, CARMELLO ARROYO, and LOUIS MALONE, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Timothy Eckert commenced this action on October 25, 2024, alleging claims of defamation, civil conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (“RICO”) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), civil conspiracy, and willful infliction of emotional distress against several individuals who are, or were, employed by General Motors in Lockport, New York. See Dkt. 1-1. On December 6, 2024, Defendants removed this action to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. 1. The case has been referred 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.

Plaintiff brought several motions before the Court, namely: a motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 53; a motion to preclude evidence, to compel, and for sanctions, Dkt. 54; a motion for leave to file a statement of undisputed facts, Dkt.

61; a motion to modify the case management order and for leave to file an amended complaint, Dkt. 64; and a motion to compel, motion for sanctions, and motion to stay. Dkt. 66. Defendants opposed Plaintiffs motions and Plaintiff filed replies.

Dkt. 57, 58 59, 60, 85, 86. On March 30, 2026, Judge Roemer issued a Report, Recommendation, and Order (“R&R”), which: (1) recommended that this Court deny Plaintiffs [53] motion for summary judgment and [64] motion to amend his complaint, and (2) ordered that Plaintiffs [54] motion to preclude evidence and for sanctions, [61] motion to file a statement of facts, and [66] motion to compel compliance with a subpoena and for sanctions be denied. See Dkt. 99.

Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. 103. Among other things, he argues that the R&R erroneously treated Plaintiffs Rule 16 motion to modify the scheduling order as moot and erroneously denied Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. Id. at 2-5.1 Defendants opposed the objections, Dkt. 107, and Plaintiff replied. Dkt. 108 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)(8). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). And it must modify or set aside any part of a magistrate judge’s order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). An order “is Page numbers refer to the CM/ECF generated numbering in the header of each page. clearly erroneous or contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Tracy v. NVR, Inc., 791 F. Supp. 2d 340, 342 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) Gnternal quotation marks and citation omitted). 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 its de novo review of the R&R’s recommendations, and its review for clear error of the R&R’s orders, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Roemer’s recommended dispositions of Plaintiff's motions and affirms his orders.

For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs [53] motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renew and [64] motion to amend his complaint as moot. The balance of the R&R is affirmed.

The Court refers the case back to Judge Roemer for further proceedings consistent with the referral order at Dkt. 4.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2026 / ™ Buffalo, New York ( / JOHN INATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE