ORDER

JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge.

Presently before the Court are Reports and Recommendations from Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay ("the R&Rs"), addressing the motion to dismiss filed by defendants United States Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (together, "the federal defendants") and the motion for an emergency hearing filed by plaintiff in the above-referenced actions.1 The R&Rs recommend that the Court grant the federal defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that the Court therefore need not decide plaintiff's motion for an emergency hearing. The R&Rs further recommend that the Court deny plaintiff leave to amend. The Court served the R&Rs on plaintiff on August 9, 2018. The R&Rs instructed that any objections be submitted within fourteen (14) days of their service. The date for filing any objections has thus expired, and no party has filed an objection to the R&Rs.

Where there are no objections, the Court may adopt a 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 no party has objected to the R&Rs, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&Rs in an abundance of caution. Having conducted a review of the records and the applicable law, and having reviewed the R&Rs de novo, the Court adopts the thorough and well-reasoned R&Rs in their entirety and grants the federal defendants' motion to dismiss, dismisses plaintiff's claims against the federal defendants, and denies plaintiffs motion for an emergency hearing.2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the federal defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's claims against the federal defendants are dismissed without leave to amend. In addition, in light of the fact that plaintiff's claims against the federal defendants were the only remaining claims in the above-referenced actions,3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close both cases.

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

The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.