ORDER

JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge.

On March 8, 2012, plaintiff filed the complaint in this action. On March 12, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to serve third party subpoenas prior to a Rule 26(f) conference. On May 15, 2012, the Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay for a Report and Recommendation.

On May 31, 2012, Magistrate Judge Lindsay issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that, "[B]ased on the well-articulated reasons set forth in In re BitTorrent, 2012 Wl 1570765 at *9-15, dismissal of the claims against all but the first named defendant is appropriate and recommends that the Complaint be dismissed, sua sponte, and without prejudice, as to all defendants except the individual designated as John Doe 1." (ECF No. 5.) To date, although the deadline for objections has expired, no objections have been filed.1

When a party submits a timely objection to a report and recommendation, the district judge will review the parts of the report and recommendation to which the party objected under a de novo standard of review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ("The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions."). Where clear notice has been given of the consequences of failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the report and recommendation without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."); see also 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."). However, because the failure to file timely objections is not jurisdictional, the district judge can still excuse the failure to object in a timely manner and exercise its discretion to decide the case on the merits to, for example, prevent plain error. See Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003) ("[B]ecause the waiver rule is non jurisdictional, we `may excuse the default in the interests of justice.'" (quoting Thomas v. Arn, 414 U.S. at 155)).

Although no objections have been filed and thus de novo review is not required, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation in an abundance of caution and HEREBY ADOPTS the well-reasoned and thorough Report and Recommendation.

IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed without prejudice as to all defendants except the individual designated as John Doe 1, for the reasons articulated by Magistrate Judge Lindsay.

SO ORDERED.