Oyeto-Ola Brice Kayossi v. Grace K Shipping, LLC et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

OYETO-OLA BRICE KAYOSSI, Plaintiff, 25 Civ. 9652 (PAE) (SLC) ~ OPINION & ORDER GRACE K SHIPPING, LLC et al., Defendants.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Pro se plaintiff Oyeto-Ola Brice Kayossi brings this contract-breach action against defendants Grace K Shipping, LLC and Daniel Kassouhouin. The original complaint alleged diversity as the sole basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. 1. On April 15, 2026, the Court sua sponte granted Kayossi leave to amend the original complaint, which alleged less than the $75,000 amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction. See Dkt. 9. Kayossi timely amended the original complaint. See Dkt. 10 (“Amended Complaint” or “AC”). On May 15, 2026, the Honorable Sarah L. Cave, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 14 (“Report”). The Report recommends sua sponte dismissal of the AC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without leave to amend and without prejudice. No party has objected to the Report.’ For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Report in full.

' The Report stated that any party had 14 days to object—i.e., by May 29, 2026. Report at 11— 12.

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, 2014 WL 4635575, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014) (quoting King v. Greiner, No. 2 Civ. 5810, 2009 WL 2001439, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009)); see also Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 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 Cave’s thorough and well-reasoned Report reveals no facial error in its conclusions; the Report is therefore adopted in its entirety. The Report explicitly states that “failure to object within 14 days will result in a waiver of objections and will preclude appellate review.” Report at 12 (cleaned up). The parties’ failure to object thus waived appellate review. See Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Small v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam)). CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Cave’s Report in its entirety. The Court thus dismisses the AC without leave to amend. The dismissal is without prejudice to Kayossi’s right to file a separate lawsuit in a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this decision would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

The Court respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this decision to Kayossi at the address on file, and to close this case.

SO ORDERED. p ul {| & grr PAUL A. ENGELMAYER United States District Judge

Dated: June 4, 2026 New York, New York