E.C. Contracting Inc. v. D.F. Pray, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York

E.C. Contracting Inc. v. D.F. Pray, Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------x E.C. CONTRACTING, INC.,

Plaintiff,

-against- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER D.F. PRAY, INC., FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF Case No. 1:19-cv-06813-FB-VMS MARYLAND, and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants. ------------------------------------------------x BLOCK, Senior District Judge: On January 12, 2022, Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that defendant D.F. Pray’s motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against Maple Drake Austell Owner, LLC be denied. Magistrate Judge Scanlon’s R&R stated that failure to object within fourteen days of the date of the R&R waives the right to appeal. No objections were filed. If clear notice has been given of the consequences of failing to object and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See Smith v. Campbell,

782 F.3d 93, 102

(2d Cir. 2015) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure to timely object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.”) (internal citations omitted). The Court will excuse the 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.

SO ORDERED. _/S/ Frederic Block__________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge

Brooklyn, New York March 24, 2022

Reference

Status
Unknown