SILVERMAN & SILVERMAN v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION (Revisited)

November 12, 2015

2015 WL 7158533



United States District Court,

E.D. New York.



SILVERMAN & SILVERMAN, LLP, Plaintiff,

v.

PACIFICA FOUNDATION, Defendant.


No. 11–CV–1894 (FB)(RML).

Signed Nov. 12, 2015.

Attorneys and Law Firms


Arthur Z. Schwartz, Advocates for Justice, New York, NY, Scott E. Kossove, L’Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contin, Garden City, NY, for the Plaintiff.

Pacifica Foundation, pro se.






MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


BLOCK, Senior District Judge.


*1 On September 21, 2015, Magistrate Judge Robert Levy issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that Plaintiff be awarded $65,076 in damages, and prejudgment interest totaling $29,284.20 and $16.05 per day until the date of entry of judgment. R & R at 14. The R & R further provided that failure to object within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. Id. To date, no objections have been filed.


If clear notice has been given of the consequences of the failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R & R without de novo review. See Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir.2002) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure to timely to object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.”). The Court will excuse a failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir.2000). No such error appears here. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R & R without de novo review and directs the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in accordance with the R & R.


SO ORDERED.


All Citations

Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2015 WL 7158533

Recent Posts

See All

Copyright © 2012 Advocates for Justice Chartered Attorneys