SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Terry Hughes appeals from the December 16, 2009 judgment of the district court granting the *64 defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the specification of issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, see Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003), resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, see Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n, Inc., 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is appropriate “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

As an initial matter, we find that Hughes has waived his right to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim because he failed to object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation regarding this claim after Hughes received sufficient notice that such failure would preclude appellate review. See Small v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (stating that pro se party’s failure to object to magistrate judge’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of any further judicial review where the party has received clear notice of the consequences of failing to object).

Upon our independent review of the record, we find no error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing Hughes’s claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution. We have considered Hughes’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion and order, see Hughes v. McWilliams, No. 04 CV 7030(KMW), 2009 WL 4823940 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.15, 2009), the judgement of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.