BERDINI v. NOVA SECURITY GROUP, 13-CV-5672 (FB) (CLP). (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. New York
Number: infdco20150921c02
Visitors: 2
Filed: Sep. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FREDERIC BLOCK , Senior District Judge . On September 2, 2015, Magistrate Judge Cheryl Pollak issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that a default judgment be entered against Nova Security Group ("Nova"), Plaintiff be awarded $91,819.19 in damages, and that Nova's cross-claims against Delta Airlines, Inc. be dismissed with prejudiced. The R&R further provided that failure to object within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. To date, no obje
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FREDERIC BLOCK , Senior District Judge . On September 2, 2015, Magistrate Judge Cheryl Pollak issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that a default judgment be entered against Nova Security Group ("Nova"), Plaintiff be awarded $91,819.19 in damages, and that Nova's cross-claims against Delta Airlines, Inc. be dismissed with prejudiced. The R&R further provided that failure to object within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. To date, no objec..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
FREDERIC BLOCK, Senior District Judge.
On September 2, 2015, Magistrate Judge Cheryl Pollak issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that a default judgment be entered against Nova Security Group ("Nova"), Plaintiff be awarded $91,819.19 in damages, and that Nova's cross-claims against Delta Airlines, Inc. be dismissed with prejudiced. The R&R further provided that failure to object within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. To date, no objections have been filed.
If clear notice has been given of the consequences of the failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure to timely object to a magistrate's report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate's decision."). The Court will excuse a 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 such error appears here. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R without de novo review and directs the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in accordance with the R&R.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
