United States District Court, N.D. New York
September 10, 2014
LEROME HILSON, Plaintiff,
S. BEAURY, et al., Defendants.
LAWRENCE E. KAHN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on August 13, 2014, by the Honorable David E. Peebles, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 23 ("Report-Recommendation").
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). "If no objections are filed... reviewing courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error." Edwards v. Fischer , 414 F.Supp.2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Cephas v. Nash , 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003) ("As a rule, a party's failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge's report waives further judicial review of the point."); Farid v. Bouey , 554 F.Supp.2d 301, 306 (N.D.N.Y. 2008).
No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. After a thorough review of the Report-Recommendation and the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for clear error or manifest injustice.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 23) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants' Motion (Dkt. No. 15) to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part consistent with the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 23); and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon the parties to this action in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.