Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180731_0001220.ENY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:26:48+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Mallek v. Allstate Indemnity Co.
Mallek v. Allstate Indemnity Co.
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, KEVIN SHAEFER, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, Defendants.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge” in a report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court must review the portions of the R&R to which timely and proper objections are made de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Objections to a report and recommendation “must point out the specific portions of the report and recommendation to which [that party] object[s].” U.S. Flour Corp. v. Certified Bakery. Inc., No. 10- CV-2522 (JS), 2012 WL 728227, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2012); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2) (“[A] party may serve and file specific written objections to the [R & R].”). However, if a party “makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error.” Friedman v. Self Help Cmty. Servs., No. 11-CV-3210, 2015 WL 1246538, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2015), aff'd sub nom. Friedman v. Self Help Cmty. Servs., Inc., 647 Fed.Appx. 44 (2d Cir. 2016); see also Manigaulte v. C.W. Post of Long Island Univ., 659 F.Supp.2d 367, 372 (E.D.N.Y. 2009); Baptichon v. Nev. State Bank, 304 F.Supp.2d 451, 453 (E.D.N.Y. 2004), aff'd, 125 Fed.Appx. 374 (2d Cir. 2005); Fortgang v. Pereiras Architects Ubiquitous LLC, No. 16-CV-3754, 2018 WL 1505564, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2018); Frankel v. City of New York, No. 06-CV-5450, 2009 WL 465645, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.25, 2009); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
Additionally, “even in a de novo review of a party's specific objections, the court ordinarily will not consider arguments, case law and/or evidentiary material which could have been but [were] not, presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance.” U.S. Flour Corp., 2012 WL 728227, at *2 (citing Kennedy v. Adamo, No. 02-CV-1776, 2006 WL 3704784, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2006)).
“Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave to amend a pleading ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.'” Lucente v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 310 F.3d 243, 258 (2d Cir. 2002)(citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).) However, “[w]here it appears that granting leave to amend is unlikely to be productive . . . it is not an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.” Id. (citing Ruffolo v. Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131 (2d Cir.1993) (per curiam)). Where an amendment has no merit and is thus futile, leave to amend should be denied. Id. (citing Health-Chem Corp. v. Baker, 915 F.2d 805, 810 (2d Cir.1990)). An amendment to a complaint is futile where the proposed claim could not survive a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Dougherty v. North Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83, 88 (2d Cir. 2002).
To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient facts, that if accepted as true, “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint providing only “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A pro se complaint must be construed liberally to raise the strongest claim it suggests. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). However, it must still satisfy the same pleading requirements and, “[b]ald assertions and conclusions of law are not adequate to withstand a motion to dismiss.” Wilson v. Dalene, 699 F.Supp.2d 534, 554 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)(citations omitted).
Plaintiff's conclusory statements and general objections overly simplify the analysis in the R&R and reiterate arguments made by the plaintiff earlier in the record that Judge Bulsara considered prior to issuing the R&R. As the objections are conclusory and repetitive, they are subject to clear error review. See Friedman, 2015 WL 1246538, at *3. Nonetheless, even upon de novo review, the court adopts Judge Bulsara's thorough and well-reasoned analysis.

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