MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MARGO K. BRODIE, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Christopher Camac and Toni Lynn Camac commenced the above-captioned action on behalf of themselves and their infant son, C.T.C., on December 4, 2009, against Defendants the Long Beach City School District, Dr. Robert Greenberg, Audrey Goropeuscheck, and Ama Darkeh, alleging violations of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs also asserted violations of their rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq. (the "Rehabilitation Act"), Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182, et seq. (the "ADA"), various articles of the New York State Constitution, New York State Human Rights Law, Executive Law § 290, et seq. (the "NYSHRL"), and New York State common law. (Docket Entry No. 1) Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants called 911 and falsely reported that C.T.C. had threatened to commit suicide at school, and, as a result, C.T.C. was removed from school, taken by the police and paramedics to Nassau University Medical Center ("NUMC") and held at NUMC for fourteen days. (Id.) Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, and on July 22, 2011, Judge Denis R. Hurley1 granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 (Docket Entry No. 15 ("Motion to Dismiss Order").)

Defendants later moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (Docket Entry No. 64), and on October 10, 2014, the Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown for a report and recommendation. By Report and Recommendation issued February 3, 2015, ("R&R"), Judge Brown recommended that the Court grant Defendants' motion in its entirety. (Docket Entry No. 75.) No objections to the R&R were filed by the February 18, 2015 deadline. (See id. ("Objections to R&R due by 2/18/2015.")) For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R&R and grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

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). "Failure to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within the prescribed time limit `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.'" Sepe v. New York State Ins. Fund, 466 F. App'x 49, 50 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997)); see also Almonte v. Suffolk Cnty., 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.").

The Court has reviewed the unopposed R&R, and, finding no clear error, the Court adopts Judge Brown's R&R in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all claims. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

SO ORDERED: