UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X : ISAAC J. WILLIAMS, : : Plaintiff, : : -v- : 23 Civ. 11018 (JPC) (RFT) : JACQUELINE DUDLEY et al., : ORDER ADOPTING : REPORT AND Defendants. : RECOMMENDATION : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Isaac J. Williams brings this action alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Dkts. 1, 42. On September 4, 2025, the Honorable Robyn F. Tarnofsky, to whom this case has been referred for general supervision of pretrial proceedings and the issuance of recommendations on dispositive motions, issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court dismiss Williams’s claims with prejudice and without leave to amend. Dkt. 55 (“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 and preclude appellate review. R&R at 27. The Report and Recommendation was electronically filed on September 4, 2025, and was mailed to Williams the following day. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (adding three days if service is made by mail). 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 reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo, finds it to be well reasoned and its conclusions well founded, and adopts it in its entirety. 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. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket Number 46, to enter judgment in favor of Defendants, and to close the case. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 7, 2025 Vibe is e 7B New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge

' Rather than raise any objections to the Report and Recommendation, Williams filed a motion to appoint counsel on September 16, 2025, Dkt. 56, which Judge Tarnofsky denied on September 18, 2025, Dkt. 57. Williams has not objected to the denial of that motion, nor does this Court find the denial to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).