Carlson v. Department of Justice

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION re: 37 Report and Recommendations, 23 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Department of Justice. For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the R&R (Dkt. 37) in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket number 23 and to close this case. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 3/19/2012) (mro)

USDC SO'""

Don

\H.'\ I

EI,ECTRO'\ I("\LLY Ell ED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

J)(

Ie

DATI-: FILEU:

I

'3JICfllY..-vo./

------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
DANIEL RAYMOND CARLSON,
10 Civ. 5149 (PAE) (KNF)

Plaintiff,
-v-

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT &

RECOMMENDA TION

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
PAUL A ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
Defendant the United States Department of Justice filed a motion for summary judgment
against pro se plaintiff Daniel Raymond Carlson's Complaint claiming that the Department of
Justice improperly withheld information from him despite a request under the Freedom of
Information Act, 5 U.S.c. § 552. On January 18,2012, the Honorable Kevin N. Fox, United
States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that defendant's motion
for summary judgment should be granted and Carlson's Complaint should be dismissed. See Dkt
37; Carlson v. DOJ, No. 1O-cv-5149, 2012 U.S. Dist. LE)(IS 6361 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18,2012)
(Report and Recommendation).

A. Applicable Legal Standard
In reviewing an R&R, a district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
When specific objections are made, "[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3);
United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34,38 (2d Cir. 1997). To accept those portions of the
R&R to which no timely objection has been made, "a district court need only satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record." King v. Greiner, No. 02-cv-5810, 2009 U.S.
Dist. LE)(IS 58771, at *10 (S.D.N. Y. July 8, 2009) (citation omitted); see also Wilds v. United
Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Carlson was clearly alerted to the fact
that any objection to the R&R was due by no later than February 2,2012. See Carlson, 2012
U.S. Dist. LE)(IS 6361, at * 16-17. To date, no objection has been received and no extension of
time to submit an objection has been granted.

B. Discussion
Careful review of the R&R reveals no facial error in its conclusions; the R&R is therefore
adopted in its entirety. Carlson's failure to object in a timely manner operates as a waiver of
appellate review. See DeLeon v. Strack, 234 F.3d 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2000) (citing Small v. Sec y of
Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989)).
[1]

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the R&R (Dkt. 37) in its entirety. The Clerk
of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket number 23 and to close this case.

SO ORDERED.

p!~ng~m~f:{h¥
United States District Judge

Dated: March 19,2012
New York, New York

[2]