VINCENT L. BRICCETTI, District Judge.
Now pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), dated July 23, 2013 (Doc. # 24), recommending this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court.
The Court presumes familiarity with the factual and procedural background of this case.
I. Standard of Review
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's recommended ruling "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). Parties may raise objections to the recommended ruling, but they must be "specific" and "written, " and submitted "[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district court may adopt those portions of the recommended ruling to which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record. See Wilds v. UPS, Inc. , 262 F.Supp.2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
By order dated June 20, 2013, Judge Davison directed plaintiff to provide his address to the Court and defendants within 30 days. Plaintiff failed to do so, and has not subsequently updated his address, shown cause why an extension to do so is warranted, or contacted the court (in writing or otherwise).
Plaintiff has not objected to Judge Davison's R&R, which the Court finds contains no error, clear or otherwise. See Wilds v. UPS, Inc. , 262 F.Supp.2d at 169.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R and dismisses this action without prejudice in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
The Clerk is instructed to close ...