Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe et al, No. 1:2011cv01279 - Document 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER: The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations set forth within the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). When there are objections to the R&R, the Court must make a de novo determination of those por tions of the R&R to which objections are made. Id.; see also Rivera v. Barnhart, 432 F. Supp. 2d 271, 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). The district judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(c). It is not required,however, that the Court conduct a hearing on the matter. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980). Rather, it is sufficient that the Court "arrive at its own, ind ependent conclusions" regarding those portions to which objections were made. Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189-90 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). In their objections, Plaintiffs argue that Magistrate Judge's R&R "focuses on semantics and label s over substance." However, this Court has considered all of Plaintiffs' objections and finds them to be without merit. For the reasons articulated in Magistrate Judge Peck's R&R, Plaintiffs' objections are overruled, and the R&R is adopted in its entirety. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Docket No. 435) is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 10/30/2013) (js)