Opinion
Case No. 05-CV-5416 (FB) (SMG).
November 30, 2007
Appearances: For the Plaintiff: JESSICA SUE ROTHBERG, ESQ. Law Offices of William Rothberg, Brooklyn, NY.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On August 2, 2006, this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Gold for a report and recommendation ("R R") concerning relief to be awarded. On June 5, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a R R recommending that plaintiff be denied relief "unless plaintiff comes forward with a clear explanation of damages and relief it seeks that is supported . . . by contemporaneous documentation." R R at 4-5. In response to the R R, plaintiff submitted such additional documentation; based on this, the Magistrate Judge issued a Supplemental R R on July 12, 2007, recommending that plaintiff be awarded a total of $10,365.34, consisting of $7,115.34 in interest on delinquent contributions, $3,000.00 in fees and $250.00 in costs. See Supplemental R R at 7. On August 22, 2007, this Court ordered plaintiff to serve a copy of the Supplemental R R on defendant and ordered defendant to file objections to the Supplemental R R within ten days of service; the order warned that failure to file timely objections "may waive the right to appeal." Docket Entry # 13. Plaintiff subsequently filed a proof of service stating that defendant was served by mail on August 28, 2007. Neither party has filed objections to the Supplemental R R.
If clear notice has been given of the consequences of failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the Supplemental R R without de novo review. See 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); no such error appears here. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Supplemental R R without de novo review and directs the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the Supplemental R R.