Summary
finding that whether a movant has satisfied its burden to demonstrate entitlement to a dismissal under rule 7.1(b) "is a more limited endeavor than a review of a contested motion to dismiss"
Summary of this case from Figueras v. VenettozziOpinion
9:04-CV-0358 (FJS/GHL).
November 27, 2007
JOSE RODRIGUEZ, O2-R-2568, Plaintiff, Pro Se, Willard Drug Treatment Center, Willard, New York.
ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General of the, State of New York, Attorney for Defendants, Albany, New York.
DAVID L. COCHRAN, ESQ., Assistant Attorney General.
DECISION AND ORDER
The above-captioned matter having been presented to me by the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge George H. Lowe filed November 6, 2007, and the Court having reviewed the Report-Recommendation and the entire file in this matter, and no objections to said Report-Recommendation having been filed, the Court hereby
ORDERS, that Magistrate Judge Lowe's November 6, 2007 Report-Recommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further ORDERS, that Defendants' motion, pursuant to Local Rule 41.2(b), to dismiss for Plaintiff's failure to provide notice to the Court of a change of address, is GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS, that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.