Tadros v. Ramos

Full title: BASSEM M. TADROS, Plaintiff, v. JOSE RAMOS and JOSE OROSCO, Defendants

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

Date published: Feb 20, 2007

Case No. CV-06-3619 (FB) (SMG) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2007)

Opinion

Case No. CV-06-3619 (FB) (SMG).

February 20, 2007

For the Plaintiff: JOHN JOSEPH CIAFONE, ESQ., Astoria, NY.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FREDERIC BLOCK, District Judge

Plaintiff sued defendants for damages resulting from a car collision. From the face of the complaint, it appears that jurisdiction is lacking since the case does not present a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and complete diversity of citizenship does not exist between the parties, see id. § 1332. Rather than address that issue, however, the Court dismisses the action for failure to prosecute.

On January 12, 2007, Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold issued a Report and Recommendation ("R R") recommending that the action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The R R states that "[a]ny objections this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of the Court . . . within ten days of receipt and in any event no later than January 30, 2007," R R at 1, and that "[f]ailure to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal the District Court's Order." Id. Notice of the R R was electronically mailed to plaintiff's counsel on the same day. See Docket Entry #4 (Notice of Electronic Filing). To date, no objections have been filed.

Where, as here, 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. Am, 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 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).

As no error appears on the face of the Magistrate Gold's R R, the Court adopts it without de novo review. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

SO ORDERED.