| USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: ————$ oT DATE FILED:_ 8/9/2019 JAMES WILLIAMS, Petitioner, 18 Civ. 8709 (PAE) (KNF) ~ OPINION & ORDER J. LA MANNA, Respondent.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Before the Court is the July 9, 2019 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kevin N. Fox, recommending—in response to respondent La Manna’s motion to dismiss Williams’ habeas petition as untimely—that the Court dismiss this action. Dkt. 14 (the “Report”). For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Report in full. I. Background A. Facts The Court incorporates by reference the summary of the facts set forth in the Report. See Report at 1-3. B. Procedural History On September 24, 2018, Williams filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

, Dkt. 1. On December 28, 2018, La Manna filed a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely, Dkt. 10, a supporting declaration, Dkt. 11, and supporting memorandum of law, Dkt. 12. On July 9, 2019, Judge Fox issued the Report. Dkt. 14. On the same day, Judge Fox’s chambers mailed a copy of the Report to Williams. Williams has yet to file any objections.

Il. 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.”

(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 (KPF) (RLE),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014) (quoting King v. Greiner, No. 02 Civ. 5810 (DLC) (AJP),

, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009), aff'd 453 Fed. App’x 88 (2d Cir. 2011)); see also, ¢.g., Mims y. Walsh, No. 04 Civ. 6133 (BSJ) (FM),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2012) (quoting Edwards v. Fischer,

(S.D.N.Y. 2006)). Because neither party has submitted objections to the Report, review for clear error is appropriate. Careful review of Judge Fox’s thorough and well-reasoned Report reveals no facial

error in its conclusions. The Court, therefore, adopts the Report in its entirety. In addition, the Report expressly states that “[fJailure to file objections within fourteen (14) days will result in a waiver of objections and will preclude appellate review.” Report at 6. Accordingly, each party’s failure to object to the Report operates as a waiver of appellate review. See Monroe v. Hyundai of Manhattan & Westchester,

(2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (quoting Caidor v. Onondaga Cuty.,

(2d Cir. 2008); Frank vy. Johnson,

(2d Cir. 1992)), CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, the Court adopts the Report in full. Williams’ petition is hereby dismissed with prejudice. See

(d)(1).

The Court respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at docket 10. SO ORDERED. f mt A Cry Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Judge Dated: August 9, 2019 New York, New York