Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180330_0000638.ENY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:27:58+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Rodriguez v. Hanesbrands Inc.
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's objections are overruled, and the R&R is adopted in its entirety.
When a party objects to an R&R, a district judge must make a de novo determination as to those portions of the R&R to which the party objects. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). Pursuant to the standard often articulated by the district courts of this Circuit, “[i]f a party . . . simply relitigates his original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error.” Antrobus v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Sanitation, 2016 WL 5390120, at * 1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2016) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Rolle v. Educ. Bus Transp., Inc., 2014 WL 4662267, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2014) (“[A] rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original papers . . . would reduce the magistrate's work to something akin to a meaningless dress rehearsal.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). On the other hand, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has suggested that a clear error review may not be appropriate “where arguably ‘the only way for [a party] to raise . . . arguments [is] to reiterate them.'” Moss v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 516, 519 n.2 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Watson v. Geithner, 2013 WL 5441748, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2013)). Nonetheless, a court will not “ordinarily . . . consider arguments, case law and/or evidentiary material which could have been, but [were] not, presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance.” Santiago v. City of New York, 2016 WL 5395837, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2016) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). After its review, the district court may then “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party does not object to a portion of the R&R, the court “‘need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.'” Galvez v. Aspen Corp., 967 F.Supp.2d 615, 617 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Reyes v. Mantello, 2003 WL 76997, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2003)).
As noted above, neither Plaintiffs nor Defendant objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation that the motion to dismiss the common law fraud claim and request for injunctive relief be granted. (See Objs. at 1.) Upon due consideration and review, and finding no clear error, that portion of the R&R is adopted in its entirety.
As an initial matter, the Court disagrees with Defendant's contention that it must conduct a de novo review of Defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to the portions of the R&R to which it objects, as those objections largely restate its arguments from its original motion papers. Defendant is not entitled to two bites at the apple. See Antrobus v. N.Y. City Dep't of Sanitation, 2016 WL 5390120, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2016) (quoting Pinkey v. Progressive Home Health Servs., 2008 WL 2811816, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2008) (“[O]bjections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate's proposal, such that no party can be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a prior argument.”)). However, even under the stricter de novo review, Defendant's arguments fail.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 636
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.