UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1/9/2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALPHONSO SYVILLE, Plaintiff, 19-CV-9988 (VEC) -against- OPINION CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: On April 6, 2023, pro se Plaintiff, Alphonso Syville, filed a Motion to reopen this case (the “Motion”). Dkt. 38. The case was dismissed with prejudice on July 10, 2020 after Plaintiff and Defendants reached a settlement. Dkt. 33. On April 18, 2023, this Court referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Figueredo for the preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to

(b). Dkt. 39. On December 20, 2023, Magistrate Judge Figueredo issued a report and recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be denied (the “R&R”). Dkt. 47. No objections to the R&R were filed. For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED. 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). When, as here, no party objects to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation the court may accept the report and recommendation provided that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Nelson v. Smith,

(S.D.N.Y. 1985); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note. Careful review of the R&R reveals that there is no facial error in its conclusions. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Figueredo’s recommendation that the Motion should be denied because: (1) Plaintiff’s motion is untimely, filed almost three years after the case was dismissed, R&R at 6–7; (2) Plaintiff cannot show good cause to reopen the case because the general release he signed as part of the settlement agreement is “an enforceable contract,” he

“explicitly agreed to all its terms,” and he does not allege that he settled under duress or as the result of fraud, R&R at 7– 11; and (3) Plaintiff’s Motion to vacate or modify the general release is barred by collateral estoppel, as the enforceability of the general release was actually litigated and decided in Syville v. City of New York, No. 20-cv-4633,

(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2022), R&R at 11–14. CONCLUSION Because Plaintiff did not object to the R&R, and because the R&R expressly warned that the failure to timely object would result in the waiver of any such objections, appellate review of this decision is precluded. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note; Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty.,

(2d Cir. 2008). The Court certifies pursuant to

(a)(3) that any appeal from this ruling would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, permission to appeal in forma pauperis is denied. Coppedge v. United States,

, 444–45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to mail a copy of this Opinion to Plaintiff and to note service on the docket. The Clerk of the Court is further requested to close the open motion at Dkt. 38. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 9, 2024 New York, New York VALERIE CAPRONI United States District Judge