Opinion
Case No. 06-CV-3703 (FB) (RML).
September 28, 2007
For the Plaintiff:, JULIE COHEN LONSTEIN, ESQ., Lonstein Law Office, P.C., Ellenville, New York.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On September 7, 2007, Magistrate Judge Levy issued a Report and Recommendation ("R R") recommending that a default judgment of $4,000, plus $1,302.50 in attorney fees and costs, be entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants. The R R recited that "[a]ny objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of the Court . . . within ten (10) business days," and that "[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time period waives the right to appeal the district court's order." R R at 10.
Plaintiffs' counsel served the R R on defendants by mailing a copy to their last known address on September 12, 2007, making objections due by September 28, 2007. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a) ("When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation."), 6(e) (adding three days for responses to documents served by mail). 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 R R 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 in the R R suggests plain error. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R R without de novo review.