Case ID: f-appx_384/html/0046-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sam WYLY, Ranger Governance, Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Sterling Software, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-4477-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 19, 2010.
    Robert Gifford (Luke A. McGrath, William A. Brewer III on the brief), Bickel & Brewer, New York, NY, for Appellants.
    Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. (Tracy Richelle High, William B. Monahan, Thomas W. Walsh on the brief), Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Richard C. Wesley, originally a member of the panel, did not participate in consideration of this appeal. The two remaining members of the panel, who are in agreement, have determined the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d); 2d Cir. I.O.P. E; United States v. Desimone, 140 F.3d 457 (2d Cir.1998).
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

For substantially the reasons adopted by the district court, we reject appellants’ claims for legal fees, fraudulent inducement, and declaratory relief. See Wyly v. CA, Inc., No. 05-CV-4430, 2009 WL 3128034, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90064 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (citing the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Boyle, see Wyly v. CA, Inc., No. 05-CV-4430, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90037 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2009)).

Appellants note that the district court signed an order adopting the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge on the same day that appellants filed their timely objections to it, and argue therefore that the district court could not have conducted a proper de novo review. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 72(b). The inference is debatable. Moreover, we note that the district court filed the order granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment eleven days after the objections were filed. This period was more than sufficient for de novo review.

Finding no merit in appellants’ remaining arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.