Garnes v. Pritchard Industries, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK seen ene □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ MARK GARNES, : Plaintiff, 20 Civ. 3843 (PAE) (SLC) ~ : OPINION & ORDER PRITCHARD INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Pro se plaintiff Mark Garnes brings this amended application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 23 (the “Third Application”). Before the Court is the July 18, 2022 Report and Recommendation of the Hon. Sarah L. Cave, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court grant the Third Application. Dkt. 25 (“Report”). The Court incorporates by reference the summary of the facts provided in the Report. For the following reasons, the Court adopts this recommendation, 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(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 vy. Citibank, N_A., No. 10 Civ. 5950 (KPF), 2014 WL 4635575, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014) (quoting King v. Greiner, No. 02 Civ. 5810 (DLC), 2009 WL, 2001439, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009)); see also, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

As no party has submitted objections to the Report, review for clear error is appropriate.

Careful review of Judge Aaron’s thorough and well-reasoned Report reveals no facial error in its conclusions; the Report is therefore adopted in its entirety. Because the Report explicitly states that “failure to object within fourteen (14) days will result in a waiver of objections and will preclude appellate review,” Report at 6, the parties’ failure to object operates as a waiver of appellate review. See Caidor v. Onondaga Cty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Small v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam)).

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Third Application for the plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court respectfully directs the Clerk to mail a copy of this decision to plaintiff at the address on file.

SO ORDERED.

Fath A. Crgp Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Judge Dated: August 4, 2022 New York, New York