VIKO v. WORLD VISION, INC.

Full title: PAUL VIKO, Plaintiff, v. WORLD VISION, INC. and WORLD VISION…

Court: United States District Court, D. Vermont

Date published: Jul 24, 2009

Case No. 2:08-CV-221 (D. Vt. Jul. 24, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 2:08-CV-221.

July 24, 2009

ORDER

WILLIAM SESSIONS III, District Judge

The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed April 28, 2009. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Report and Recommendation on May 13, 2009 and filed objections on May 14, 2009. On June 25, 2009, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an Opinion and Order granting the Motion to Alter or Amend the Report and Recommendation.

A district judge must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or recommendation to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Cullen v. United States, 194 F.3d 401, 405 (2d Cir. 1999). The district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." § 636(b)(1); accord Cullen, 194 F.3d at 405.

After careful review of the file, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and the objections, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendations as amended in the Opinion and Order dated June 25, 2009 recommending that this matter be transferred to the Southern District of New York rather than the Central District of California.