Opinion
Case No. 07-CV-2175 (FB) (VVP).
August 5, 2009
For the Plaintiff: RAYMOND B. GRUNEWALD, ESQ., Raymond B. Grunewald Associates, New York, NY.
For the Defendants: MARK S. SILBERGLITT, ESQ., Diamond, Rutman, Costello, Silberglitt, Esqs., New York, NY.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On April 8, 2009, Magistrate Judge Pohorelsky issued a Report and Recommendation ("R R") recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice because plaintiffs have failed to appear in this action, by counsel or otherwise, after the withdrawal of their counsel due to illness. See R R at 1. The magistrate judge notified plaintiffs of its attorney's withdrawal by a Memorandum and Order dated February 3, 2009 (the "Order"). See id. The Order provided Plaintiffs ample time and opportunity to respond but warned of the consequences of a failure to appear. See id. The R R also stated that failure to object within ten days would preclude appellate review. See id. at 2. At the magistrate court's direction, copies of the R R were mailed and faxed to plaintiffs on April 29, 2009; 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 dismiss this action in accordance with the R R.