From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sachs v. Nunziante

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Aug 24, 2016
15-CV-1825 (JFB)(AKT) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2016)

Opinion

15-CV-1825 (JFB)(AKT)

08-24-2016

ARYE SACHS, Plaintiff, v. JEROME NUNZIANTE, Defendant.


ORDER :

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") from Magistrate Judge Tomlinson recommending that the Court award plaintiff the following as damages: (1) $60 for early termination of plaintiff's use and occupancy of the rented room; (2) $3,000 in emotional distress damages; and (3) $3,000 in punitive damages. The R&R instructed that any objections to the R&R be submitted within fourteen (14) days of service of the R&R. (See R&R, dated July 21, 2016, at 19-20.) The date for filing any objections has since expired, and neither party has filed any objection to the R&R. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the thorough and well-reasoned R&R in its entirety, and awards plaintiff $6,060 in damages.

Where there are no objections, the Court may adopt the report and recommendation without de novo review. See Thomas v. Am, 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 both parties have waived any objection to the R&R and thus de novo review is not required, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R in an abundance of caution. Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, and having reviewed the R&R de novo, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the well-reasoned and thorough R&R in their entirety. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is awarded the following in damages: (1) $60 for early termination of plaintiff's use and occupancy of the rented room; (2) $3,000 in emotional distress damages; and (3) $3,000 in punitive damages.

SO ORDERED.

/s/_________

Joseph F. Bianco

United States District Judge Dated: August 24, 2016

Central Islip, New York


Summaries of

Sachs v. Nunziante

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Aug 24, 2016
15-CV-1825 (JFB)(AKT) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2016)
Case details for

Sachs v. Nunziante

Case Details

Full title:ARYE SACHS, Plaintiff, v. JEROME NUNZIANTE, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Aug 24, 2016

Citations

15-CV-1825 (JFB)(AKT) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2016)