Kitsis v. Home Attendant Vendor Agency

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM and ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. There being no error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face of the MJ Mann's Report and Recommendation 11 . Therefore, the Court adopts it without de novo review. The Clerk shall dismiss this action without prejudice. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 2/10/2017. (Innelli, Michael)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------x
ADA KITSIS,
Plaintiff,
-againstHOME ATTENDANT VENDOR
AGENCY, INC.,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case No. 15-CV-6654-FB-RLM

Defendant.
----------------------------------------------x
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
On December 12, 2016, Magistrate Judge Mann issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this action be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to effect timely service. The R&R advised that “ [a]ny objection
to this Report and Recommendation must be filed . . . on or before December 27,
2016,” and that “[f]ailure to file objections in a timely manner may waive a right to
appeal the District Court order.” R&R at 8. The R&R was electronically served the
same day.
The following day, the plaintiff asked Magistrate Judge Mann to reconsider her
recommendation. The magistrate judge denied the request, but extended the time to
file objections with the Court to January 3, 2017. To date, no objections have been
filed.

Where 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, however,
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 error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face of the R&R. Therefore, the
Court adopts it without de novo review. The Clerk shall dismiss this action without
prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
/S/ Frederic Block____
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
February 10, 2017

2