Opinion
Case No. 04-CV-4856 (FB)(LB).
March 6, 2006
Appearances: For the Plaintiff: PATRICIA WILSON, pro se Brooklyn, New York.
For the Defendants: LAWRENCE RANDOLPH BAILEY, ESQ. Hodgson Russ LLP New York, New York.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On February 17, 2006, Magistrate Judge Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation ("RR") recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C) because the plaintiff failed to appear for her deposition despite Judge Bloom's order directing her to do so. The RR recited that "the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. . . . Failure to file a timely objection to this Report generally waives any further judicial review." RR at 6 (citations omitted). The RR was served on all parties on February 17, 2006, making objections due by March 3, 2006. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a) ("When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation."). 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 RR 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). Here, nothing in the RR suggests plain error. Accordingly, the Court adopts the RR without de novo review.
SO ORDERED.