Opinion
Case No. 11-CV-0195 (FB) (CLP)
03-13-2012
JOHN TABOR, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY, DETECTIVE JAMES ROPENUS, DETECTIVE MCLAUGHLIN, POLICE OFFICER SINGLET ARY, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY KEISHA ESPINAL, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY LAUREN PARSONS, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY KENNETH APPLEBAUM, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY MARJORIE FISHER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY RICHARD BROWN, and POLICE COMMISSIONER RAYMOND KELLY, in their individual and professional capacities, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
On February 23, 2012, Magistrate Judge Pollak issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") in this action. As pertinent here, the magistrate judge recommended that all claims against defendants Keisha Espinal, Lauren Parsons, Kenneth Applebaum, Marjorie Fisher, Richard Brown and Raymond Kelly be dismissed.
The remainder of the R&R addressed matters within the magistrate judge's non-dispositive, pretrial jurisdiction.
The R&R recited that "[a]ny objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of the Court.,. within fourteen (14) days," and that" [f]ailure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court's order." R&R at 23. The R&R was electronically served on all parties. See Receipt for Docket Entry #27. 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).
The R&R contains no error, let alone plain error. Accordingly, the Court adopts it without de novo review. The claims against the aforementioned defendants are, accordingly, dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
___________
Frederic Block
Senior United States District Judge
March 13, 2012
Brooklyn, New York