Purzak v. Long Island Housing Services, Inc. et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 83) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants serve a copy of this Order on plaintiff.. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 3/8/2018. (Bollbach, Jean)
uNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
12-CV-1747 (JFB) (SIL)
!N CLERK'S OFFICE
U S. D1STRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.
LONG ISLAND HOUSING SERVICES,
INC., et al.,
MAR 08 2018
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge:
On October 18, 2017, Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke held a status conference in which
he issued a Report and Recommendation (the "R&R," ECF No. 92) through an oral ruling on the
record. Magistrate Judge Locke's recommendations were recorded in the "Minute Order"
summarizing his oral ruling. (ECF No. 92.) In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Locke
recommended that the Court deny defendants' motion to dism.iss for failure to prosecute. (Id at
1.) Magistrate Judge Locke directed defendants to "notify the Court whether they intend to file
objections to the district judge on or before October 25, 2017, in which case the Court may issue
a more extended report consistent with the record at oral argument and the reasoning above."
(Id at 2.) As instructed, on October 25, 2017, defendants submitted a letter notifying the Court
that "Defendants do not intend to file objections to district judge and will rely upon the record at
oral argument." (ECF No. 93.) Defendants have not since submitted any additional letters
regarding their motion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the wellreasoned R&R in its entirety and denies defendants' motion to dismiss.
Where there are no objections to a report and recommendation issued by a magistrate
judge, the Court may adopt the report and recommendation without de novo review. See
Thomas v. Arn, 414 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require
district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other
standard, when neither party objects to those findings."); see also 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."); cf 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(c) and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (requiring de novo review after objections). However, because the failure to
file timely obj~ctions is not jurisdictional, a district judge may still excuse the failure to object in
a timely manner and exercise its discretion to decide the case on the merits to, for example,
prevent plain error. See Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, I 07 (2d Cir. 2003) ("[B]ecause the
waiver rule is non jurisdictional, we 'may excuse the default in the interests of justice."' (quoting
Thomas, 414 U.S. at 155)).
Although defendants have waived any objection to the R&R and thus de novo review is
not required, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R in an abundance of caution..
. Magistrate Judge L<;>cke considered the circumstances under the applicable legal standard and
correctly det~rmined that dismissal was unwarranted given, inter cilia, the hardships that plaintiff
has suffered and the lack of any prejudice to defendants. In sum, having conducted a review of
the Complaint, the motion papers, and the applicable law, and having reviewed the R&R de .
novo, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the well-reasoned R&R in
their entirety. Accprdingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 83) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that def~ndants serve a copy of this Order on plaintiff.
Central Islip, New Yark
vted States District
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?