McLean v. Clark

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BAHSID MCLEAN, Plaintiff, 19 Civ. 10967 (PAE) (BCM) ~ OPINION & ORDER HAZEL JENNINGS et al., Defendants.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Currently pending is defendant’s motion to dismiss pro se plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Dkts. 66-68 (the “Motion”). The Motion follows a referral by this Court to the Hon. Barbara C. Moses, United States Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 74. Before the Court is the January 19, 2022 Report and Recommendation of Judge Moses, granting the Motion and recommending that the Court dismiss the case with prejudice. Dkt. 78 (“Report”). The Court incorporates by reference the summary of the facts provided in the Report. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Report’s recommendation. DISCUSSION In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, 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). “To accept those portions of the report 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.” Ruiz v. Citibank, N.A., No. 10 Civ. 5950 (KPF), 2014 WL 4635575, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014) (quoting King v. Greiner, No, 02 Civ. 5810 (DLC), 2009 WL 2001439, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009)); see also, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

As no party has submitted objections to the Report, review for clear error is appropriate. Careful review of Judge Moses’s thorough and well-reasoned Report reveals no facial error in its conclusions; the Report is therefore adopted in its entirety. Because the Report explicitly states that “[tlhe parties shall have 14 days from this date to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation,” and that “fflailure to file these timely objections will result in a waiver of such objections and will preclude appellate review.”! Report at 13. See Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir, 2008) (citing Small v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam)). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Motion and recommending that the Court dismiss the case with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case.

SO ORDERED. p al A PAUL A. ENGELMAYER United States District Judge

Dated: February 9, 2022 New York, New York

' Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, pro se plaintiff has an additional three days, measured from the date on which this Report was mailed to him, to object. The docket sheet shows that the Report was mailed to pro se plaintiff on January 20, 2022, giving plaintiff until February 6, 2022. That deadline has now passed.