Linkov v. Golding et al

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The R&R contains no error, let alone plain error. Accordingly, the Court adopts it without de novo review. The defendants motion to vacate the default is granted, and defendants answer shall be filed nunc pro tunc. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 10/31/2013. (Innelli, Michael)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------x
AMRAM LINKOV,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case No. 12-CV-2722 (FB) (LB)

DAVID GOLDING d/b/a SUKI & DING
d/b/a SUKI & DING PRODUCTIONS,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------x
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
On October 4, 2013, Magistrate Judge Bloom issued a report and
recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant defendant’s motion to
vacate the entry of default that was entered against him on March 28, 2013. The R&R also
recommended that the Court allow defendant’s answer to be filed nunc pro tunc.
The R&R recited that “the parties shall have fourteen days from service of this
Report to file written objections” and that “[f]ailure to file a timely objection . . . generally
waives any further judicial review.” R&R at 8. On October 4, 2013, the R&R was served
on counsel for Golding, making objections due by October 18, 2013. 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 defendant’s motion to vacate the default is granted,
and defendant’s answer shall be filed nunc pro tunc.
SO ORDERED.

_/S/ Frederic Block_
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
October 29, 2013
Brooklyn, New York

2