Claude v. Peikes, No. 07-0408 (2d Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
07-0408-cv Claude v. Peikes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ____________________________________ August Term, 2007 (Argued: July 17, 2008 Decided: July 25, 2008) Docket No. 07-0408-cv ____________________________________ PHENOL CLAUDE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RONALD D. PEIKES, COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________________________ Before: NEWMAN, CALABRESI, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. ____________________________________ Appeal from a Judgment of the United States District Court for the District of 32 Connecticut (Nevas, J.) approving the magistrate judge s recommendation that Plaintiff s claims 33 be dismissed. 34 AFFIRMED. 35 36 _________________________ 1 PHENOL CLAUDE, Hampton, Conn., pro se. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MICHAEL A. GEORGETTI, Hartford, Conn., for DefendantAppellee Ronald D. Peikes Zeichner Ellman & Krause LLP, Greenwich, Conn., for DefendantAppellee Countrywide Home Loans. _____________________________________ PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellant Claude Phenol appeals pro se from a District Court order adopting the 12 recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his claims against Defendant-Appellees 13 on the grounds that his claims are time-barred and hence subject to dismissal under Federal Rule 14 of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We affirm the decision of the District Court for essentially the 15 reasons given by the magistrate judge. 16 Appellant argues that the District Court did not meet its statutory duty to review the 17 magistrate s recommendation de novo. There is, however, nothing to suggest that the district 18 court did anything less. In similar cases, the Eighth and the Tenth Circuits have persuasively 19 argued that we should presume that the district court has made a de novo review unless 20 affirmative evidence indicates otherwise. Hosna v. Groose, 80 F.3d 298, 306 (8th Cir. 1996); 21 see also Bratcher v. Bray-Doyle Indep. Sch. Dist., 8 F.3d 722, 724 (10th Cir. 1993) (stating that a 22 district court is presumed to have conducted a de novo review of a magistrate judge s report and 23 recommendation absent some clear indication otherwise ). For substantially the reasons given in 24 those opinions, we adopt the same rule here. 25 We have considered all of Appellant s arguments and found them meritless. Accordingly the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
