# Ciappetta v. Snyder

> District Court, E.D. New York · January 8, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10303596

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** January 8, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10303596

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X For Online Publication Only
NOEL CIAPPETTA,

Plaintiff,

-against- ORDER
15-CV-4427 (JMA) (ARL)

BARRY SNYDER, PGD IV LLC and PGT

TRUCKING, INC.,

Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
AZRACK, United States District Judge:

On December 19, 2019, Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Plaintiff’s two motions to compel a trial date be
denied with leave to refile. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any objections and the deadline for
filing any such objections has passed. Having conducted a review of the full record and the
applicable law, I adopt Judge Lindsay’s R&R as the opinion of the Court.
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court must “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or . . . recommendations to which
objection[s][are] made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Brown v. Ebert, No. 05–CV–5579,
2006 WL 3851152, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2006). The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). Those portions of a report and recommendation to which there is no specific
reasoned objection are reviewed for clear error. See Pall Corp. v. Entegris, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 48,
51 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
Having reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, the Court adopts Judge
Lindsay’s R&R and denies Plaintiff’s two motions to compel a trial date, with leave to refile.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8, 2020
Central Islip, New York

/s/ (JMA)
JOAN M. AZRACK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10303596. Public record. Not legal advice.