Lake v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 39

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Accordingly, having adopted the Report in its entirety, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: A. The Dismissal Motion is GRANTED; B. The Strike Motion is DISMISSED as moot; and C. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. The 10/3/2019 Status Conference is marked off the Court's calendar. SO Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 9/23/2019. (Tirado, Chelsea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------X
PETER LAKE and TIMOTHY CREED,
Individually, and on behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
ORDER Adopting
Report & Recommendation
18-cv-2009 (SJF)(AYS)

Plaintiff,
- againstFORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------X
FEUERSTEIN, District Judge:
I.

Introduction
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) of the Honorable Anne

Y. Shields, United States Magistrate, dated August 22, 2019 (see ECF No. 38), recommending
that Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (hereafter, the “Dismissal Motion”; see ECF No. 26) be granted, and its motion to
strike the class allegations in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (hereafter, the “Strike Motion”; see
ECF No. 32) be dismissed as moot. The Report further advised the parties, inter alia, (1) that
A[a]ny written objections to th[e] Report . . . must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within
fourteen (14) days of filing of this [R]eport,” and (2) that a A[f]ailure to file objections within
fourteen (14) days will preclude further review of this [R]eport . . . either by the District Court or
Court of Appeals.” (Report at 15) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145 (1985); Caidor v.
Onondaga County., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008)). Although a copy of the Report was
served upon counsel for all parties via the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system on the date it
was issued, i.e., August 22, 2019 (see Notice of Electronic Filing associated with ECF No. 38

1

(i.e., the Report)), no objections have been filed, nor has any party sought an extension to do so.
(See Case Docket, in toto.) For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Judge Shileds’ Report is
adopted in its entirety.

II.

Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Any party may serve and file written objections to a report and recommendation of a

magistrate judge within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any portion of such a report and recommendation
to which a timely objection has been made is reviewed de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, the Court is not required to review the factual findings or
legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to which no proper objections are interposed. See
Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150. Indeed, “[w]here parties receive clear notice of the consequences,
failure to timely object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of
further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.” Smith v. Campbell, 782 F.3d 93, 102 (2d
Cir. 2015) (quoting Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002)).
Nonetheless, the waiver rule is “nonjurisdictional” and, thus, the Court may excuse a
violation thereof “in the interests of justice.” King v. City of N.Y., Dep’t of Corr., 419 F. App’x
25, 27 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order) (quoting Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir.
1993)); see also DeLeon v. Strack, 234 F.3d 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2000). “Such discretion is exercised
based on, among other factors, whether the defaulted argument has substantial merit or, put
otherwise, whether the magistrate judge committed plain error in ruling against the defaulting

2

party.” Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir.
2000); accord King, 419 F. App’x at 27.
To accept the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation absent a timely objection,
the court need only be satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b); Baptichon v. Nevada State Bank, 304 F. Supp.2d 451, 453 (E.D.N.Y. 2004), aff'd,
125 F. App’x 374 (2d Cir. 2005). Whether or not proper objections have been filed, the district
judge may, after review, accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations. See 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.72(b).
B. Review of the Report
No party has filed objections to the Report within the time prescribed in 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C), nor has any party sought an extension of the objection deadline. As the parties
were provided with adequate notice of the Report and an express warning of the consequences of
a failing to timely file objections thereto, their failure to interpose timely objections to the Report
operates as a waiver of further judicial review. See Caidor, 517 F.3d at 602-03; Mario, 313
F.3d at 766. Thus, this Court is not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the findings and
conclusions in the Report, but rather “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
face of the record to accept a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.” Safety-Kleen
Sys., Inc. v. Silogram Lubricants Corp., No. 12-cv-4849, 2013 WL 6795963, at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
Dec. 23, 2013). After a careful review of the Report, the Court finds no plain error in either the
reasoning or the conclusions reached therein, and accordingly, adopts it in its entirety.

3

III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, having adopted the Report in its entirety, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
A. The Dismissal Motion is GRANTED;
B. The Strike Motion is DISMISSED as moot; and
C. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
***
The October 3, 2019 Status Conference is marked off the Court’s calendar.
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of September 2019 at Central Islip, New York.

Sandra J. Feuerstein

/s/
Sandra J. Feuerstein
United States District Judge

4