UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK enna ne □□□ □□□ ene nenne ne nnnsntn meen MARICELA DONET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, : : 23 Civ. 1286 (PAE) (SDA) Plaintiff, : OPINION & ORDER -V- : ISAMAX SNACKS, INC., Defendant.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Currently pending is a motion by defendant Isamax Snacks, Inc. (“Isamax”) to dismiss plaintiff Maricela Donet’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkts. 11, 15. Before the Court is the August 14, 2023 Report and Recommendation of the Hon. Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court deny Isamax’s motion. Dkt. 27 (“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.”

(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),

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

, at

(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 16, the parties’ failure to object operates as a waiver of appellate review. See Caidor v. Onondaga Cty.,

(2d Cir. 2008) (citing Small v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 892 ¥.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam)). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies defendant’s motion to dismiss, The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket 15.

SO ORDERED. fog fe

United States District Judge

Dated: September 18, 2023 New York, New York