Conyers v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs

Filing 37

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - see order for details.. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 2/22/2017. (Bollbach, Jean)cm by chambers to pro se by fcm on 2/22/17

Download PDF
FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------){ VINCENT CURTIS CONYERS, * FEB 22. 2017 * LONG ISLAND OFFICE Plaintiff, ORDER 16-CV-13 (JFB) (SIL) -againstUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS, Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------------){ JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge: Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") from Magistrate Judge Locke recommending that the Complaint in this action be dismissed in its entirety, and that plaintiff be granted leave to amend his Complaint. (ECF No. 34.) 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 at 38.) The date for filing any objections has since expired, and none of the parties has filed any objection to the R&R. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the thorough and well-reasoned R&R. Where there are no objections, the Court may adopt the report and recommendation without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 4 74 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 all parties 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. 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 and thorough R&R and dismisses the Complaint in its entirety with leave to add causes of action for injunctive relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(l )(A)-(8) and to re-plead causes of action one, two, three, four, five, six, eight, nine, and ten. Plaintiff has already filed an Amended Complaint with the Court (ECF No. 36), and need notre-file it pursuant to this Order. ~() iYI).. n P D/1:' n ~~b~.f\C...C Jo rP -F'. Bianco U •ted States District Judge Dated: February 22, 2017 Central Islip, New York 2 /

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?