From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bhalla v. JP Morgan Chase Co.

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Apr 26, 2005
03-CV-6051 (DRH)(JO) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2005)

Summary

dismissing case for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) where plaintiff was missing for approximately eight months and failed to attend two conferences

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. Clark

Opinion

03-CV-6051 (DRH)(JO).

April 26, 2005


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER


On April 6, 2005, United States Magistrate Judge James Orenstein issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court enter an order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The Report advised the parties that any party must file objections within ten (10) days of service of the report, and that failure to file objections would result in a waiver of the right to appeal the final order of this Court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). More than ten (10) days have elapsed since the Report was served and to date, no party has filed any objections.

The Court has reviewed the conclusions reached by Judge Orenstein and finds that they are supported in the record and not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Court adopts the April 6, 2005 Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Bhalla v. JP Morgan Chase Co.

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Apr 26, 2005
03-CV-6051 (DRH)(JO) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2005)

dismissing case for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) where plaintiff was missing for approximately eight months and failed to attend two conferences

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. Clark
Case details for

Bhalla v. JP Morgan Chase Co.

Case Details

Full title:SONAL BHALLA, Plaintiff, v. JP MORGAN CHASE CO., Defendant

Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Apr 26, 2005

Citations

03-CV-6051 (DRH)(JO) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2005)

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. Clark

Bernabe v. Giant Big Apple Beer LTD., No. 06-CV-6708(ARR)(KAM), 2007 WL 4573873, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 26,…

Paige v. Lacoste

Judge Reyes found further delay would prejudice the Defendants, depriving them of the information necessary…