Opinion
Case No. 05-CV-2696 (FB)(LB).
January 11, 2006
JOEL M. GLUCK, ESQ., Brooklyn, NY, For Plaintiff.
BRIAN F. WARD, ESQ., Brooklyn, NY, For Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On December 16, 2005, Magistrate Judge Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation ("RR") recommending that the above-referenced case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The RR recited that "the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. . . . Failure to file a timely objection to this Report generally waives any further judicial review[.]" RR at 5. The RR was served on all parties no later than December 22, 2005; to date, 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 RR without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); 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, however, 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). Here, nothing on the face of the RR suggests plain error. Accordingly, the Court adopts the RR without de novo review.
SO ORDERED.