Summary
recommending dismissal of the plaintiff's action for failure to prosecute be without prejudice
Summary of this case from Lutz v. O'MearaOpinion
9:12-CV-0459 (LEK/RFT)
10-07-2014
MICHAEL PERKINS, Plaintiff, v. DAVID A. ROCK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on September 5, 2014, by the Hon. Randolph F. Treece, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 79 ("Report-Recommendation").
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). "If no objections are filed . . . reviewing courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error." Edwards v. Fischer, 414 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003) ("As a rule, a party's failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge's report waives further judicial review of the point."); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306 (N.D.N.Y. 2008).
No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. After a thorough review of the Report-Recommendation and the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for clear error.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 79) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion (Dkt. No. 74) to dismiss is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon the parties to this action in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 07, 2014
Albany, New York
/s/_________
Lawrence E. Kahn
U.S. District Judge