Opinion
9:10-CV-1033 (LEK/TWD)
12-20-2013
HOWARD PERRY, Plaintiff, v. AMANDA RUPERT; et al., Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on October 16, 2013, by the Honorable Therese Wiley Dancks, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 48 ("Report-Recommendation").
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). "If no objections are filed . . . reviewing courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error." Edwards v. Fischer, 414 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003) ("As a rule, a party's failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge's report waives further judicial review of the point."); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306 (N.D.N.Y. 2008).
No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed in the allotted time period. After a thorough review of the Report-Recommendation and the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for clear error or manifest injustice.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 48) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants Motion (Dkt. No. 44) to dismiss is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that this mattered is REFERRED to Judge Dancks for the holding of an evidentiary hearing regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon the parties to this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: December 20, 2013
Albany, New York
_____________
Lawrence E. Kahn
U.S. District Judge