ORDER

JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge.

On September 17, 2014, incarcerated pro se plaintiff Darius Burris ("plaintiff') brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against defendants Nassau District Attorney, Nassau County Police, Queens County District Attorney, New York City Police, Hempstead Police Department, Detective Dezelic, Detective Guballi, Lieutenant Boden, Detective Tzimoratas, Detective Puleo, Sergeant Reilly, three unidentified police officers in the Hempstead Police Department—two of whom have since been identified as Officers W. Van Wyen and Matthew A. Flannery—one unidentified police officer in the New York City Police Department, and an unidentified assistant district attorney in the Queen's County District Attorney's Office (collectively "defendants"). (ECF No. 1.) Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R," ECF No. 92) from Magistrate Judge Brown concerning motions to dismiss filed by (1) the Nassau District Attorney, Nassau County Police, Detective Dezelic, Detective Guballi and Lieutenant Boden (collectively, the "Nassau County defendants") (ECF No. 61), (2) the Hempstead Police Department and Officers Murphy, Van Wyen, and Flannery (collectively the "Hempstead Village defendants") (ECF No. 65), and (3) the New York City Police and the Queens County District Attorney (collectively, the "New York City defendants") (ECF No. 70). In the R&R, Judge Brown recommends that this Court grant in part and deny in part the Nassau County defendants' motion, grant the Hempstead Village defendants' motion, and grant in part and deny in part the New York City defendants' motion. Judge Brown also recommends that this Court grant plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint on all claims except false arrest, unlawful search and seizure incident to arrest, malicious prosecution, deprivation of the right to a fair trial, and the related conspiracy and retaliation claims (unless the underlying conviction is vacated or otherwise invalidated.)

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 January 12, 2017, at 38-39.) The Nassau County defendants served the R&R on plaintiff on January 13, 2017 (see ECF No. 93), and plaintiff requested extensions to file his objections on January 21, February 2, and February 23, 2017. (ECF Nos. 94, 96, 98.) This Court granted plaintiff the requested extensions, ultimately extending his time to file until March 24,2017. (ECF Nos. 95, 97, 99.) The Court informed plaintiff in its final order granting an extension dated March 2, 2017 that "[n]o further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances." (ECF No. 99.) Notably, in his February 2 request, plaintiff claimed that pages were missing from the copy of the R&R that he received from the Nassau County defendants (see ECF No. 96), and, in compliance with this Court's February 8 order responding to that letter, the Clerk of the Court mailed a full copy of the R&R to plaintiff (see ECF No. 97). Nevertheless, plaintiff continued to insist that he had not received a full copy of the R&R. (See ECF Nos. 98, 100.) On March 13,2017, the Hempstead Village defendants filed an affidavit of service indicating that they had served a copy of the R&R on plaintiff on that same day. (ECFNo. 101.) The date for plaintiff to file objections to the R&Rhas passed, and plaintiff has not filed any such objections. 1

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 fmdings."); 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); 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 plaintiff has waived any objections 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. Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, and having reviewed the R&R de novo, the Court adopts the fmdings and recommendations contained in the well-reasoned and thorough R&R in their entirety. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Nassau County defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in the R&R, the Hempstead Village defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as set forth in the R&R, and the New York City defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in the R&R. Specifically:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for all claims dismissed without prejudice, plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days of receipt of this order. For the reasons set forth in the R&R, plaintiff may not re-plead his claims for false arrest, unlawful search and seizure incident to arrest, malicious prosecution, deprivation of the right to a fair trial, and the related conspiracy and retaliation claims (unless the underlying conviction has been vacated or otherwise invalidated).

Plaintiff also requests that this Court appoint counsel. (See ECF No. 102.) This Court previously denied similar requests in an order dated January 4, 2016 without prejudice to renewal "if circumstances warrant such application." (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff has not identified any circumstances that have changed since its prior order that undercut the reasoning of that order. Therefore, for the reasons set for in the January 4, 2016 order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request to appoint counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of these proceedings if the circumstances warrant renewal.