Sachs v. Matano
Filing
27
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 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 defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint is granted and defendant's motion for sanctions is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. So Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 8/4/2016. (c/m to pro se by chambers) (Ortiz, Grisel)
FILE C
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------)(
ARYESACHS,
U.S.
*
IN CLERK'S OPF'ICE
DISTRICT
COURf E.O.N.Y.
AUG G4 2016
*
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
Plaintiff,
ORDER
l 5-CV-6049(JFB)(AKT)
-againstDR. RICHARD A. MAT ANO, MD,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------)(
JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge:
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") from Magistrate Judge
Tomlinson recommending that the Court grant the defendant's motion to dismiss and deny
defendant's motion for sanctions. The R&R instructed that any objections to the R&R be submitted
within fourteen (14) days of service of the R&R. (See R&R, dated July 15, 2016, at 24.) The date
for filing any objections has since expired, and plaintiff has not 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 the defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint and denies the
defendant's motion for sanctions. 1
Where there are no objections, the Court may adopt the report and recommendation without
de nova 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
nova 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
I The Court notes that, although the resjudicata issue was raised for the first time in the reply, plaintiff had the
opportunity to contest that issue by filing objections to the R&R, and chose not to do so. Thus, he has been given
sufficient notice and opportunity to respond to that issue.
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, I 07 (2d Cir. 2003) ("[B]ecause the waiver
rule is non jurisdictional, we 'may excuse the default in the interests ofjustice."' (quoting Thomas,
474 U.S. at 155)).
Although plaintiff has 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.
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 wellreasoned and thorough R&R in their entirety. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint is granted and defendant's motion for
sanctions is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
soo~ __
-;pos.eph F- 6ionco ·
~~~~~~a e:n~~strict Judge
Dated:
August 4, 2016
Central Islip, New York
'
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?