UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EMANI E. POWELL, Plaintiff, 24-CV-6620 (JGLC) (KHP) -against- ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 34 Endeavor Hospitality LLC , AND RECOMMENDATION Defendant.

JESSICA G. L. CLARKE, United States District Judge: This motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment were referred to Magistrate Judge Parker for a Report and Recommendation. See ECF Nos. 14, 19, 29, 30. In the Report and Recommendation filed on July 7, 2025, Magistrate Judge Parker recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted and motion for summary judgment be denied. See ECF No. 41. Magistrate Judge Parker also denied Plaintiff’s motion to strike be denied. Id. 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). A district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also United States v. Male Juvenile,

(2d Cir. 1997). To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, however, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv.,

(S.D.N.Y. 2003). This clearly erroneous standard also applies when a party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments. See, e.g., Ortiz v. Barkley,

(S.D.N.Y. 2008). In the present case, the Report and Recommendation 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. See ECF No. ECF No. 41 at 9. In addition, the Report and Recommendation expressly called Plaintiff's attention to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

(b)(1). Nevertheless, as of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed and no request for an extension of time to object has been made. Accordingly, Plaintiff has waived the right to object to the Report and Recommendation or to obtain appellate review. See Frank v. Johnson,

(2d Cir. 1992); see also Caidor v. Onondaga County,

(2d Cir. 2008). Despite the waiver, the Court has reviewed the motions and the Report and Recommendation, unguided by objections, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be well reasoned and grounded in fact and law. Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as required by Title VH. Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the procedural prerequisite to suit. Because the suit is dismissed, Plaintiffs motions are moot. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 14, 29, and 30, close the case, and to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 13, 2025 New York, New York

Oo) aca CL QA Ke 7 St JESSICA G. L. CLARKE United States District Judge