DECISION and ORDER

MICHAEL A. TELESCA, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court following a Report and Recommendation (Dkt #59) filed on October 24, 2017, by the Honorable Michael J. Roemer, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72(b) and (c) of the Western District of New York. In his Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), Judge Roemer recommended that counseled plaintiff Alicia Robinson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt #55) on her appeal of this Court's Decision and Order entered May 12, 2017 (Dkt #45)1 be denied, because any appeal of that Decision and Order would be frivolous and not taken in good faith, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

The R&R was served electronically to both parties on October 24, 2017. The parties were given fourteen (14) days from the date of their receipt of the R&R to file objections to it, and were specifically informed that any objections were due by November 13, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed, and neither party has sought an extension of time in which to file objections.

When reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, a district court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made[,]" 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge[,]" id. Where no "specific written objection" is made to portions of the magistrate judge's report, the district court may adopt those portions, "as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings and conclusions set forth in those sections are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Eisenberg v. New England Motor Freight, Inc., 564 F.Supp.2d 224, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); other citation omitted). The district court is not required to review any portion of a magistrate judge's report that is not the subject of an objection. Eisenberg, 564 F. Supp.2d at 227 (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149).

As noted above, no objections were made to any portion of the R&R. The Court has reviewed Judge Roemer's thorough and well-reasoned R&R, and finds that it is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Court accordingly accepts all of the findings and recommendations therein.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the R&R (Dkt #59) is adopted in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Dkt #55) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.