Claude v. Peikes

07-0408-cv
Claude v. Peikes
1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
2
3 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
4
5 ____________________________________
6
7 August Term, 2007
8
9 (Argued: July 17, 2008 Decided: July 25, 2008)
10
11 Docket No. 07-0408-cv
12
13 ____________________________________
14
15 PHENOL CLAUDE,
16
17 Plaintiff-Appellant,
18
19 – v. –
20
21 RONALD D. PEIKES, COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.,
22
23 Defendants-Appellees.
24
25 ____________________________________
26
27 Before: NEWMAN, CALABRESI, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
28
29 ____________________________________
30
31 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
1 PHENOL CLAUDE, Hampton, Conn., pro se.
2
3 MICHAEL A. GEORGETTI, Hartford, Conn., for Defendant-
4 Appellee Ronald D. Peikes
5
6 Zeichner Ellman & Krause LLP, Greenwich, Conn., for Defendant-
7 Appellee Countrywide Home Loans.
8 _____________________________________
9
10 PER CURIAM:
11 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