United States District Court, E.D. New York
January 12, 2015
MARCUS HARPER, Plaintiff,
COLLINS BUILDING SERVICES, Defendant
Marcus Harper, Plaintiff, Pro se, Brooklyn, NY.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Eric N. Vitaliano, United States District Judge.
On January 12, 2015, Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Poliak issued a Report and Recommendation (" R& R") finding that plaintiff's case be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff Marcus Harper filed this pro se action against his former employer, alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq . as well as state law. By Order, November 11, 2014, plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint, within 30 days from the entry of the Order on the docket. The Order, which was entered on the docket on November 14, 2014, further provided that, if plaintiff failed to amend his complaint in the time allowed, " the Court shall dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and judgment shall enter." Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint. The time for doing so has long passed. The R& R then issued. No objections to it been filed.
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, this court " may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Moreover, in order to accept a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation where no timely objection has been made, the district " court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Urena v. New York, 160 F.Supp.2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. Smith. 618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)).
Magistrate Judge Poliak's R& R is comprehensive and well-reasoned. Because this Court, after careful review, finds no clear error in the Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts it in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the R& R, plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed. Since all of plaintiff's federal claims have been dismissed, Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over his state law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice to their refiling in a state court of appropriate jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant and to close this case.