ORDER

JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge.

Before the Court is a February 26, 2018 Report and Recommendation ("R&R," ECF No. 42) from Magistrate Judge Lindsay recommending that the Court deny plaintiffs' motion for damages (ECF No. 40) with leave to renew. The R&R instructed that any objections to the R&R be submitted within fourteen (14) days of the R&R. (R&R at 9.) The date for filing any objections has since expired, and plaintiffs have not filed any objection to the R&R. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the thorough and well-reasoned R&R in its entirety and denies plaintiffs' motion for damages with leave to renew.

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 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. Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, and having reviewed the R&R de novo, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the well-reasoned and thorough R&R in their entirety. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for damages (ECF No. 40) is denied with leave to renew.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs serve a copy of this Order on defendants and file proof of service with the Court.

SO ORDERED.