McClain v. Doe et al

Filing 121

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 120 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Dugan's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 106 ) is GRANTED. ORDERED, that Dugan is DISMISSED as a defendant herein. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 11/26/19. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AARON A. McCLAIN,
Plaintiff,
-against-

9:17-CV-46 (LEK/ML)

JANE DOE, et al.,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
1.

INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation and Order filed

on October 28, 2019, by the Honorable Miroslav Lovric, United States Magistrate Judge,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3, Dkt. No. 120 (“Report-Recommendation”
and “Order”), concerning RN Jessica Dugan’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 106.
2.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s

report-recommendation, the party “may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). If objections are
timely filed, a court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” § 636(b).
However, “where [the] 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.” Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir.
2002); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (holding that Congress did not

“intend[] 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”).
The Court may excuse a party’s failure to object “in the interests of justice,” and modify
or reject the report-recommendation, if “the magistrate judge committed plain error in ruling
against the defaulting party.” Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d
162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000). Therefore, when no party objects to a magistrate judge’s
report-recommendation, courts in this circuit review it only to determine whether the magistrate
judge made a clear error. Boice v. M+W U.S., Inc., 130 F. Supp. 3d 677, 684 (N.D.N.Y. 2015);
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Edition (“When no timely
objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.”).
3.

DISCUSSION
No objections were filed. Docket. Consequently, the Court has reviewed the

Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none. The Court therefore adopts the
Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
4.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 120) is APPROVED and

ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Dugan’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 106) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Dugan is DISMISSED as a defendant herein; and it is further

2

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Decision and Order on all
parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

November __, 2019
26
Albany, New York
LAWRENCE E. KAHN
United States District Judge

3