Cordero v. United Airlines, Inc.

Opinion

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : DENYSE CORDERO, : : Plaintiff, : : 23 Civ. 8583 (JPC) -v- : : ORDER ADOPTING UNITED AIRLINES, INC., : REPORT AND : RECOMMENDATION Defendant. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Denyse Cordero brings this action alleging that Defendant United Airlines, Inc. lost her baggage. Dkt. 10. On May 20, 2025, the Honorable Henry J. Ricardo, to whom this case has been referred for general supervision of pretrial proceedings and dispositive motions, issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice because Plaintiff has failed to participate in the discovery process. Dkt. 45. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge” in a Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party submits a timely objection to any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition, the district court will conduct a de novo review of the contested section. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). If no objections are made, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error. See, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). The Report and Recommendation, citing both Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), advised the parties that they had fourteen days from service of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections, and warned that failure to timely file such objections would result in waiver of any right to object. Dkt. 45 at 10. No objections have been filed and the time for making any objections has passed. The parties have therefore waived the night to object to the Report and Recommendation or to obtain appellate review. See Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); see also Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2008). Notwithstanding this waiver, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and finds it to be well reasoned and its conclusions well founded. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismisses this case with prejudice. See Agiwal v. Mid Island Mortg. Corp., 555 F.3d 298, 302-03 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal with prejudice where a pro se plaintiff failed to participate in the discovery process). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: June 10, 2025 Vb, New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge