Padhy v. City of N.Y.

Full title: CHANDRAJEET PADHY and OSAMA KHALEEL, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Oct 3, 2017

Case No. 17-CV-03211 (FB) (SMG) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2017)

Opinion

Case No. 17-CV-03211 (FB) (SMG)

10-03-2017

CHANDRAJEET PADHY and OSAMA KHALEEL, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SGT. CONA, and POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE, Defendants.

Appearances: For the Plaintiffs: THOMAS AUSTIN BROWN, ESQ. The Austin Brown Law Firm 349 5th Avenue New York, New York 10016 For the Defendants: ARTHUR G. LARKIN NYC Office of Corporation Counsel Special Federal Litigation Division 100 Church Street, Room 3-180 New York, NY 10007

BLOCK, Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Appearances:
For the Plaintiffs:
THOMAS AUSTIN BROWN, ESQ.
The Austin Brown Law Firm
349 5th Avenue
New York, New York 10016 For the Defendants:
ARTHUR G. LARKIN
NYC Office of Corporation Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
100 Church Street, Room 3-180
New York, NY 10007 BLOCK, Senior District Judge :

On September 15, 2017, Magistrate Judge Gold issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court dismiss the Complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). See R&R at 1. The R&R also stated that Plaintiffs' failure to object within fourteen days of receiving the R&R may preclude appellate review. See id. No objections have been filed.

If clear notice has been given of the consequences of 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 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 the 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 to enter judgment in accordance with the R&R.

SO ORDERED.

/S/ Frederic Block

FREDERIC BLOCK

Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, NY
October 3, 2017