Opinion
18-CV-2091 (SJF)(AKT)
07-10-2019
ROBERT SAURO, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., Defendant.
ORDER
:
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable A. Kathleen Tomlinson, United States Magistrate Judge, dated May 29, 2019 ("the Report"), inter alia, (1) recommending that the motion of defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation ("defendant") for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure be granted; and (2) advising, inter alia, (a) that "[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of th[e] Report . . . to file written objections[,]" (Report at 23), and (b) that "[f]ailure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal." (Id.) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985); Beverly v. Walker, 118 F.3d 900, 901 (2d Cir. 1997); and Savoie v. Merchants Bank, 84 F.3d 52, 60 (2d Cir. 1996)). A copy of the Report was served upon counsel for all parties via ECF on May 29, 2019. (See Docket Entry ["DE"] 30).
No party has filed any timely objections to the Report, nor sought an extension of time to do so. For the reasons set forth below, the Report is accepted in its entirety. I. Standard of Review
Any party may serve and file written objections to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any portion of such a report and recommendation to which a timely objection has been made is reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The court, however, is not required to review the factual findings or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to which no proper objections are interposed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985). Where a party "received clear notice of the consequences of the failure to object" to a report and recommendation on a dispositive matter, Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992) (quotations and citation omitted); accord Small v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989), his "failure to object timely to [that] report waives any further judicial review of the report." Frank, 968 F.2d at 16; see also Smith v. Campbell, 782 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir. 2015); Caidor v. Onondago County, 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008).
Nonetheless, the waiver rule is "nonjurisdictional" and, thus, the Court may excuse a violation thereof "in the interests of justice." King v. City of New York, Dep't of Corr., 419 F. App'x 25, 27 (2d Cir. Apr. 4, 2011) (summary order) (quoting Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993)); see also DeLeon v. Strack, 234 F.3d 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2000). "Such discretion is exercised based on, among other factors, whether the defaulted argument has substantial merit or, put otherwise, whether the magistrate judge committed plain error in ruling against the defaulting party." Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000); accord Maitland v. Fishbein, 712 F. App'x 90, 92 (2d Cir. Feb. 26, 2018) (summary order). II. Review of Report
Since no party has filed any timely objections to Magistrate Judge Tomlinson's Report, nor sought an extension of time to do so, they have "waive[d] any further judicial review of the findings contained in the [R]eport." Spence, 219 F.3d at 174. Moreover, as the Report is not plainly erroneous, the Court will not exercise its discretion to excuse the parties' default in filing timely objections to the Report in the interests of justice. Accordingly, the Report is accepted in its entirety and, for the reasons set forth therein, defendant's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is granted and plaintiff's claims against it are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of defendant and close this case. SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN
United States District Judge Dated: July 10, 2019
Central Islip, New York