Filed: Sep. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 09, 2015
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. BIANCO , District Judge . Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") from Magistrate Judge Locke, advising the Court to grant the defendants' motions for summary judgment, and to deny plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint and cross-motion for summary judgment. The R&R instructed that any objections to the R&R be submitted within fourteen (14) days of service of the R&R. (See R&R, dated July 29, 2015, at 20.) The date for filing any objections has since
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. BIANCO , District Judge . Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") from Magistrate Judge Locke, advising the Court to grant the defendants' motions for summary judgment, and to deny plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint and cross-motion for summary judgment. The R&R instructed that any objections to the R&R be submitted within fourteen (14) days of service of the R&R. (See R&R, dated July 29, 2015, at 20.) The date for filing any objections has since ..
More
ORDER
JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge.
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") from Magistrate Judge Locke, advising the Court to grant the defendants' motions for summary judgment, and to deny plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint and cross-motion for summary judgment. The R&R instructed that any objections to the R&R be submitted within fourteen (14) days of service of the R&R. (See R&R, dated July 29, 2015, at 20.) The date for filing any objections has since expired, and plaintiff has not filed any objection to the R&R. 1For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the thorough and well-reasoned R&R in its entirety, and dismisses plaintiff's complaint.
Where 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."); cf. 28 U.S. C.§ 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (requiring de novo review after objections). However, because the failure to file timely objections is not jurisdictional, a district judge may 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, 474 U.S. at 155)).
Although plaintiffs have waived any objection to the R&R and thus de novo review is not required, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R in an abundance of caution and HEREBY ADOPTS the well-reasoned and thorough R&R in its entirety.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted and the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint is also denied. The case is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
SO ORDERED.
