Blair v. L.I. Child and Family Development Services, Inc et al

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS : For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the thorough and well-reasoned R&R in its entirety, grants the motion to dismiss as to all defendants, and grants plaintiff thirty (30) days to amend her complaint.. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 2/21/17. (Bollbach, Jean)

F 1L E 0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

IN ClERK'S OFFICE
U.S. DIS'(!{ICT COURT E.O.N.Y.

*

FEB 2 l 2017

. ,.... .. IS ISLAND OFFICE

CAROLINE BLAIR,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
16-CV-1591 (JFB)(SIL)

-against-

*

L.I. CHILD AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES, INC, et al.,
Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------){
JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge:

On January 31, 2017, Magistrate Judge Locke issued a Report and Recommendation
(the "R&R," ECF No. 14) recommending that the Court grant the motion to dismiss filed by
defendants L.l. Child and Family Development Services, Inc., Arlene Lacey, and Carmen B.
Ruiz (ECF No.9) and grant plaintiff thirty (30) days to amend her complaint. The R&R was
served on plaintiff on January 31, 2017. (ECF No. 15.) The R&R instructed that any objections
to the R&R be submitted within fourteen (14) days of service ofthe R&R, i.e., by February 14,
2017. (R&R 40.) The date for filing any objections has thus 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, grants the motion to dismiss as to all defendants, and grants
plaintiff thirty (30) days to amend her complaint.
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, 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, 4 74 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 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 in their entirety. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is granted as to all
defendants.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date of
this Order to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended
complaint by that time will result in the Court dismissing the action against all defendants with
prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants serve a copy of this Order on plaintiff.
SO ()'Rf\PDPT"\

'

~~ b""'--f\<-CJ
HF.BIANCO
ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated:

February 21, 2017
Central Islip, NY