Opinion
06-CV-5131 (ARR) (VVP).
July 6, 2007
ORDER
I have received the Report and Recommendation on the instant case dated June 15, 2007 from the Honorable Viktor V. Pohorelsky, United States Magistrate Judge. No objections have been filed. Having conducted a de novo review of the record, I hereby adopt the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, this action is dismissed for failure to prosecute.
SO ORDERED.
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
On May 23, 2007, the court issued an order directing counsel for the plaintiff to advise the court in writing as to the status of this case by June 6, 2007. That order also informed counsel that the failure to comply with the order may result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. Counsel for the plaintiff has thus far failed to respond to that order. Nor has the court received any other communication from counsel regarding this case. The court has reviewed the docket in this case and notes that, as of the date of this Report and Recommendation, no action has been taken by the plaintiff since filing the complaint on September 22, 2006. There are no returns of service indicating that the complaint was ever served on the defendants and, of course, no answer has been filed.
The docket reflects that counsel for the plaintiff received this order on May 23, 2007 at 2:58 PM EDT, at davidrosen@davidrosen-law.com, the email address that he provided to this court.
Accordingly, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Hoffman v. Wisner Mfg. Co., No. CV-95-1058 (ADS), 1996 WL 296938, at *3-4 (E.D.N.Y. June 1, 1996).
Any objections to the Report and Recommendation above must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within 10 days of receipt of this report. Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal any judgment or order entered by the District Court in reliance on this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155, 106 S.Ct. 466, 474, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann, 9 F.3d 1049, 1054 (2d Cir. 1993); Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 825 (1992); Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Serv., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam).