Water Resources Group, LLC. et al v. Powers, No. 2:2012cv03779 - Document 31 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, and having reviewed the R&R for clear error, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the well-reasoned and thorough R&R in their entirety. Even under a de novo standard, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motions are denied. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 9/13/2013.

Download PDF
Water Resources Group, LLC. et al v. Powers 12UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X : WATER RESOURCES GROUP, LLC, and : REYNOLDS & COMPANY VENTURE : PARTNERS, LLC, : : Plaintiffs, : : – against – : : LEEANN POWERS, : : : Defendant. : : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge: Doc. 31 ORDER 12-CV-3779 (JFB)(GRB) On July 31, 2012, plaintiffs Water Resources Group, LLC and Reynolds & Company Venture Partners, LLC filed the complaint in this action against pro se defendant Leeann Powers. On February 28, 2013, defendant filed motions to dismiss the complaint for improper venue, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and lack of personal jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, that the case be transferred to the Central District of California. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to those motions on April 5, 2013. Defendant submitted a reply on April 22, 2013, and plaintiffs filed a sur-reply on May 17, 2013. By Order dated May 14, 2013, the Court referred the motions to Magistrate Judge Brown for a Report and Recommendation. On August 19, 2013, Magistrate Judge Brown issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), recommending that defendant’s motions be denied in their entirety. The R&R further instructed that any objections to the R&R be submitted within fourteen (14) days of service of the R&R. (See Report and Recommendation dated August 19, 2013, at 16-17.) No objections have been filed to date, although the date for filing any objections has expired. Dockets.Justia.com A district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. See DeLuca v. Lord, 858 F. Supp. 1330, 1345 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); Walker v. Hood, 679 F. Supp. 372, 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). As to those portions of a report to which no “specific written objections” are made, the Court may accept the findings contained therein, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings are not clearly erroneous. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., 956 F. Supp. 509, 513 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, and having reviewed the R&R for clear error, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the wellreasoned and thorough R&R in their entirety. Even under a de novo standard, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motions are denied. SO ORDERED. ________________________________ JOSEPH F. BIANCO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: September 13, 2013 Central Islip, New York

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.