Filed: Feb. 25, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 25, 2020
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FREDERIC BLOCK , Senior District Judge . On January 22, 2020, Magistrate Judge Mann issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that funds held by the Court be disbursed in accordance with a proposed consent order. The R&R advised that objections were due by February 5, 2020, and warned that "[f]ailure to file objections in a timely manner may waive a right to appeal the District Court order." R&R at 10-11. The R&R was electronically served on all parties.
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FREDERIC BLOCK , Senior District Judge . On January 22, 2020, Magistrate Judge Mann issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that funds held by the Court be disbursed in accordance with a proposed consent order. The R&R advised that objections were due by February 5, 2020, and warned that "[f]ailure to file objections in a timely manner may waive a right to appeal the District Court order." R&R at 10-11. The R&R was electronically served on all parties. N..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
FREDERIC BLOCK, Senior District Judge.
On January 22, 2020, Magistrate Judge Mann issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that funds held by the Court be disbursed in accordance with a proposed consent order. The R&R advised that objections were due by February 5, 2020, and warned that "[f]ailure to file objections in a timely manner may waive a right to appeal the District Court order." R&R at 10-11. The R&R was electronically served on all parties. No objections have been filed.
Where clear notice has been given of the consequences of failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate's decision."). The Court will, however, excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000).
No error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face of the R&R, so the Court adopts it without de novo review. The signed consent order will be filed forthwith.
SO ORDERED.
