UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X : MICHAEL BUXBAUM, : : Plaintiff, : 25 Civ. 527 (JPC) (OTW) : -v- : ORDER ADOPTING : REPORT AND ERIC GOLDSMITH, : RECOMMENDATION : Defendant. : : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Michael Buxbaum brings this action against Defendant Eric Goldsmith. Dkt. 3. On June 12, 2025, the Honorable Ona T. Wang, to whom this case has been referred for general supervision of pretrial proceedings and to issue recommendations on any dispositive motions, issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court deny Buxbaum’s motion for summary judgment at Docket Number 23 as premature and duplicative of a previous summary judgment motion that Buxbaum filed, at Docket Number 13. Dkt. 34 (“R&R”). A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge” in a Report and Recommendation.

(b)(1)(C). If a party submits a timely objection to any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition, the district court will conduct a de novo review of the contested section. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also United States v. Male Juvenile,

(2d Cir. 1997). If no objections are made, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error. See, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv.,

(S.D.N.Y. 2003). The Report and Recommendation, citing both Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

(b)(1), advised the parties that they had fourteen days from service of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections, and warned that failure to timely file such objections would result in waiver of any right to object. R&R at 1. No objections have been filed and the time for making any objections has passed. The parties have therefore waived the right to object to the Report and Recommendation or to obtain appellate review. See Frank v. Johnson,

(2d Cir. 1992). Notwithstanding this waiver, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and finds it to be well founded. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denies without prejudice Buxbaum’s motion for summary judgment at Docket Number 23 as premature and duplicative of the motion at Docket Number 13. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Docket Number 23. The Court certifies under

(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf Coppedge v. United States,

(1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: July 18, 2025 vhf New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge