Giambrone v. Meritplan Insurance Company, 1:13-cv-07377

Plaintiffs Pietro and Brigid Giambrone sued Meritplan after Hurricane Sandy allegedly damaged their home in October 2012; Meritplan removed the state-court action to federal court.
Meritplan filed a third-party complaint against the City of New York and NYC Department of Parks and Recreation asserting claims for contribution and indemnity related to the plaintiffs’ property-damage claims.
The third-party defendants moved to dismiss the third-party complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Magistrate Judge Steven L. Tiscione issued a Report & Recommendation (R&R) recommending the Court grant the motion to dismiss.
No party filed objections to the R&R.
The district court reviewed the unopposed R&R for clear error, adopted it in full, and dismissed the third-party complaint with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Meritplan’s third-party complaint states a claim for contribution/indemnity against the City	Meritplan asserted the City’s conduct contributed to Plaintiffs’ property damage and sought contribution/indemnity	City argued the third-party complaint failed to state a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6)	Court adopted R&R and granted motion; third-party complaint dismissed with prejudice
Standard of review for an unopposed R&R	Meritplan implicitly asked for merits review by not objecting	City relied on dismissal and nonobjection to R&R	Because there were no objections, court reviewed for clear error and found none; adopted R&R

United States v. Romano, 794 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 2015) (describes de novo review requirement when a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s R&R)
Chime v. Peak Sec. Plus, Inc., 137 F. Supp. 3d 183 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (general or conclusory objections to an R&R are reviewed for clear error)