MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MARGO K. BRODIE, District Judge.

On December 15, 2010, Plaintiffs Trevor Burton, Emily Burton, AZ Transit Contracting Corporation, Douglas R. Sherman and Sari M. Sunshine commenced the above-captioned action against Defendants Frank Gagliano, Barry Lamb, Michael R. Koblentz, Emanuel, Zuckerman, the Incorporated Village of East Hills and the Building Department of the Incorporated Village of East Hills. (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) After amending the Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged two federal causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and five state law causes of action for intentional interference with a contract, prima facie tort, negligence, nuisance and trespass.1 (Am. Compl., Docket Entry No. 16.) Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated their due process rights when they revoked certain building permits and issued stop-work orders on a property in the Village of East Hills. (Id. ¶¶ 40-43.)

Defendants moved for summary judgment as to all claims pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Defs. Notice of Mot. for Summ. J., Docket Entry No. 35.) The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on October 28, 2015. (See Order dated Oct. 28, 2015.) By report and recommendation dated July 21, 2016 (the "R&R"), Judge Tomlinson recommended that the Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims.2 (R&R 38, Docket Entry No. 54.) No party has objected to the R&R.

A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's recommended ruling "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). "[F]ailure to object timely to a magistrate judge's report may operate as a waiver of any further judicial review of the decision, as long as the parties receive clear notice of the consequences of their failure to object." Eustache v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 621 F. App'x 86, 87 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997)); see also Almonte v. Suffolk Cty., 531 F. App'x 107, 109 (2d Cir. 2013) ("As a rule, a party's failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge's report waives further judicial review of the point." (quoting Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003))); Wagner & Wagner, LLP v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C., 596 F.3d 84, 92 (2d Cir. 2010) ("[A] party waives appellate review of a decision in a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation if the party fails to file timely objections designating the particular issue." (first citing Cephas, 328 F.3d at 107; and then citing Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002))).

The Court has reviewed the unopposed R&R and, finding no clear error, the Court adopts Judge Tomlinson's R&R in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted, and the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' state law claims without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.