Buxbaum v. Goldsmith
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-00527
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Buxbaum v. Goldsmith, Judge Cronan adopted a recommendation and denied Buxbaum’s premature, duplicative summary-judgment motion without prejudice.
Michael Buxbaum’s summary-judgment motion at Docket Number 23 was denied without prejudice. The order also denied him permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
What happened
In Buxbaum v. Goldsmith, Michael Buxbaum filed a motion asking for summary judgment at Docket Number 23. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended denying it because it was premature and duplicated an earlier motion at Docket Number 13.
The parties did not object to the recommendation within the required fourteen days. The court therefore said they waived their right to object or seek appellate review, although it independently reviewed the recommendation in full.
Judge John P. Cronan adopted the recommendation in its entirety and denied Buxbaum’s motion without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to close Docket Number 23, and the court denied Buxbaum permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Buxbaum v. Goldsmith · No. 1:25-cv-00527
- John Cronan
- July 18, 2025
Background
Michael Buxbaum sued Eric Goldsmith. Buxbaum filed a summary-judgment motion at Docket Number 23. Summary judgment is a request for a ruling without a trial when the law and undisputed facts support that result. The opinion states that Buxbaum had previously filed another summary-judgment motion at Docket Number 13.
The case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for general supervision of pretrial proceedings and recommendations on dispositive motions. Judge Wang issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the court deny the Docket Number 23 motion because it was premature and duplicative of the earlier motion.
Objections and Review
The Report and Recommendation gave the parties fourteen days after service to file objections and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object. No objections were filed, and the deadline passed. The court said the parties therefore waived the right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review.
Despite that waiver, the court conducted its own full review of the recommendation. It found the recommendation well founded.
Ruling
Judge John P. Cronan adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied without prejudice Buxbaum’s Docket Number 23 motion for summary judgment as premature and duplicative of the motion at Docket Number 13. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket Number 23.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal-related filing fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.