From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jacobs v. Aiken

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Sep 28, 2021
16-CV-1242(GRB)(JMW) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2021)

Opinion

16-CV-1242(GRB)(JMW)

09-28-2021

JAMES JACOBS, v. DETECTIVE DARRYL AIKEN, et al., Defendant.


ORDER

GARY R. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is the meticulously detailed, 14-page Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of U.S. Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks recommending that summary judgment be entered in favor of defendant. Familiarity with Judge Wicks's fine decision is assumed.

In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, the 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). Where, as here, no objections are filed, the Court may adopt a report and recommendation without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); see also 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.”); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (requiring de novo review after objections). However, because the failure to file timely objections is not jurisdictional, a district judge may still excuse the failure to object in a timely manner and exercise its discretion to decide the case on the merits to, for example, prevent plain error. See Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003) (“[B]ecause the waiver rule is non jurisdictional, we ‘may excuse the default in the interests of justice.'”) (quoting Thomas, 474 U.S. at 155)). Although plaintiff has waived any objection to the R&R and thus de novo review is not required, given plaintiff's pro se status, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R in an abundance of caution.

The Court hereby fully adopts the R&R, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the Clerk will enter judgment and close the case.

The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Jacobs v. Aiken

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Sep 28, 2021
16-CV-1242(GRB)(JMW) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2021)
Case details for

Jacobs v. Aiken

Case Details

Full title:JAMES JACOBS, v. DETECTIVE DARRYL AIKEN, et al., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Sep 28, 2021

Citations

16-CV-1242(GRB)(JMW) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2021)