Kashelkar v. Village of Spring Valley

Second Circuit

Kashelkar v. Village of Spring Valley

320 F. App'x 53

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 7, 2009

DocketNo. 07-2500-cv

StatusPublished

This text of 320 F. App'x 53 (Kashelkar v. Village of Spring Valley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kashelkar v. Village of Spring Valley, 320 F. App'x 53 (2d Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Ashok Kashelkar, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Brieant, J.), dismissing his complaint against the County of Rockland and Rockland County District Attorney Michael E. Bongiorna. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history.

Where, as here, the magistrate judge’s report states that failure to object will preclude appellate review and no objection is made within the allotted time, then failure to object generally operates as a waiver of the right to appellate review. See DeLeon v. Struck, 234 F.3d 84, 86 (2d Cir.2000). As long as adequate notice is provided, the rule also applies to pro se parties. Small v. Secretary of HHS, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir.1989) (per curiam). Thus, by failing to file any objection to the report and recommendation, Appellant waived his right to challenge the substance of the report and recommendation. Moreover, upon review of the record, it is plain that the magistrate judge’s decision “was not clearly wrong” and, thus, we need not excuse Appellant’s default in the interest of justice. Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd., 838 F.2d 55, 59 (2d Cir.1988); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). In any event, we have examined Appellant’s claims and find them to be without merit. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980) (“As to ... dispositive motions, the district judge may designate a magistrate to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition .... ’’(quotation marks omitted)).

For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Ashok Kashelkar, pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Brieant, J.), dismissing his complaint against the County of Rockland and Rockland County District Attorney Michael E. Bongiorna. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history.

Where, as here, the magistrate judge’s report states that failure to object will preclude appellate review and no objection is made within the allotted time, then failure to object generally operates as a waiver of the right to appellate review. See DeLeon v. Struck, 234 F.3d 84, 86 (2d Cir.2000). As long as adequate notice is provided, the rule also applies to pro se parties. Small v. Secretary of HHS, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir.1989) (per curiam). Thus, by failing to file any objection to the report and recommendation, Appellant waived his right to challenge the substance of the report and recommendation. Moreover, upon review of the record, it is plain that the magistrate judge’s decision “was not clearly wrong” and, thus, we need not excuse Appellant’s default in the interest of justice. Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd., 838 F.2d 55, 59 (2d Cir.1988); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). In any event, we have examined Appellant’s claims and find them to be without merit. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980) (“As to ... dispositive motions, the district judge may designate a magistrate to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition .... ’’(quotation marks omitted)).

For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 F. App'x 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kashelkar-v-village-of-spring-valley-ca2-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack