Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

Moore v. Publicis Grp. SA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Oct 30, 2013

ANDREW L. CARTER

ORDER ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge:

Plaintiff's Monique da Silva Moore and other class representatives brought this action against Defendants Publicis Group SA and MSLGroup alleging gender discrimination. Along with its motion for class certification, Plaintiff's moved to a file a third amended complaint. In their proposed submission, Plaintiff's sought to add individual Title VII and class FMLA claims. This Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Peck issued an R&R recommending that Plaintiff's motion be denied. Plaintiff's filed timely objections challenging the R&R's findings and conclusions.

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)(1). When there are objections to the R&R, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions 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)(1)(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, independent 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, Plaintiff's argue that Magistrate Judge's R&R "focuses on semantics and labels over substance." However, this Court has considered all of Plaintiff's' objections and finds them to be without merit. For the reasons articulated in Magistrate Judge Peck's R&R, Plaintiff's' objections are overruled, and the R&R is adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Docket No. 435) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2013
New York, New York


________


ANDREW L. CARTER, JR.


United States District Judge