People of the State of New York v. Suffolk County

Filing 43

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court grants defendant's motion to dismiss the federal claims with prejudice and denies plaintiffs' omnibus motion. In addition, given the dismissal of the federal cl aims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction overany potential state law claims against defendant, and these state law claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the cas e. The Court also certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall serve a copy of this Order on plaintiffs and file proof of service with the Court. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 3/8/2018. (Bollbach, Jean)

FILED

IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

*

---------------------------------------------------------------){

TERRELL CLARK, et al.,

MAR 08 2018

*

LONG ISLAND OFFICE
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
14-CV-7195 (JFB)(AYS)

-againstSUFFOLK COUNTY,
Defendant.

---------------------------------------------------------------){

JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge:

On February 7, 2018, Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields issued a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R," ECF No. 41), recommending that the Court (i) grant the motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 37) filed by defendant Suffolk County ("defendant"); (ii) deny the "omnibus
motion" (ECF No. 38) filed by prose pl~intiffs Terrell Clark and Sarene Robinson ("plaintiffs");
(iii) dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint (that is, the federal claims) with prejudice; and

(iv) decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims. The R&R
instructed that any objections to the R&R be submitted within fourteen (14) days of the filing of
the R&R. (ECF No. 41 at 11.) The R&R was served on plaintiffs on February 8, 2018. (See ECF
No. 42.) The date for filing any objections has thus expi!ed, and no party has filed any objection
to the R&R. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the thorough and well-reasoned
R&R in its entirety and grants defendant's motion to dismiss the federal claims with prejudice and
denies plaintiffs' omnibus motion. In addition, given the dismissal of the federal claims, the Court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims against
defendant, and these state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.
Where there· are no objections, the Court may adopt a report and recommendation without de

novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 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 objections 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, 107 (2d Cir. 2003) ("[B]ecause the waiver rule is non jurisdictional, we 'may excuse the
default in the interests of justice."' (quoting Thomas, 474 U.S. at 155)).
Although no party has objected to the R&R, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the

R&R in an abundance of caution. Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law,
and having reviewed the R&R de novo, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained
in the well-reasoned and thorough R&R in their entirety.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court grants defendant's motion to
dismiss the federal claims with prejudice and denies plaintiffs' omnibus motion. In addition, given
the dismissal of the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
any potential state law claims against defendant, and these state law claims are dismissed without
prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. The Court
also certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be
taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal.
See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall serve a copy of this Order on plaintiffs
and file proof of service with the Court.

seph F. Bianco
nited States District Judge
Dated:

March 8, 2018
Central Islip, New York

3