Opinion
23-CV-10150 (JGLC)
01-23-2024
ASHU SHUKLA, Plaintiff, v. META PLATFORMS INC. and DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JESSICA G. L. CLARKE, United States District Judge
On December 7, 2023, this case was referred to Magistrate Judge Stein for general trial purposes and dispositive motions. ECF No. 23. On January 1, 2024, Judge Stein filed a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 53) in relation to Plaintiff's motion to remand (ECF Nos. 8-9) this action to state court. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Stein recommended that motion be denied. See ECF No. 53.
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, however, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F.Supp.2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). This clearly erroneous standard also applies when a party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments. See, e.g., Ortiz v. Barkley, 558 F.Supp.2d 444, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
In the present case, the Report and Recommendation advised the parties that they had fourteen days from service of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections and warned that failure to timely file such objections would result in waiver of any right to object. See ECF No. 53. In addition, the Report and Recommendation expressly called the parties' attention to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Nevertheless, as of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed and no request for an extension of time to object has been made. Accordingly, Plaintiff has waived the right to object to the Report and Recommendation or to obtain appellate review. See Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992).
Despite the waiver, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, unguided by objections, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be well reasoned and grounded in fact and law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 8.
SO ORDERED.