Summary
finding that costs were insufficiently documented when Plaintiff provided only a "three-line summary of costs"
Summary of this case from Shim-Larkin v. City of N.Y.Opinion
14-CV-1721 (FB) (CLP)
09-29-2015
GREGORY ANDREWS, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.
Appearances: For the Plaintiff: JOHN JOSEPH NONNENMACHER 744 Fairmount Avenue Chatham, NJ 07928 For the Defendants: MELANIE MARY SPEIGHT New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Appearances:
For the Plaintiff:
JOHN JOSEPH NONNENMACHER
744 Fairmount Avenue
Chatham, NJ 07928
For the Defendants:
MELANIE MARY SPEIGHT
New York City Law Department
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
BLOCK, Senior District Judge :
On September 10, 2015, Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that plaintiff's counsel be awarded $11,970.00 in fees and $400.00 in costs. The R&R further provided that failure to object within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. To date, no objections have been filed.
If clear notice has been given of the consequences of the failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure to timely to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate's decision."). The Court will excuse a failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000). No such error appears here. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R without de novo review and directs the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in accordance with the R&R.
SO ORDERED.
/S/ Frederic Block
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
September 29, 2015