The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ARTHUR LAMAR BROWN,
Plaintiff,
23-CV-5924 (JGLC) (SDA)
-against-
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendants.
JESSICA G. L. CLARKE, United States District Judge:
This motion to dismiss was referred to Magistrate Judge Aaron for a Report and
Recommendation. See ECF Nos. 23, 59. In the Report and Recommendation filed on July 16,
2025, Magistrate Judge Aaron recommended that the motion be granted in part and denied in
part. See ECF No. 71.
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.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(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, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (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., 262 F.
Supp. 2d 163, 169 (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, 558 F. Supp. 2d 444, 451 (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. 71 at 31. In addition, the Report and Recommendation expressly called Plaintiffs
attention to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(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, 968
F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); see also Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2008).
Despite the waiver, the Court has reviewed motion and the Report and Recommendation,
unguided by objections, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be well reasoned and
grounded in fact and law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its
entirety.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 59 and to mail a copy of this Order
to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 19, 2025
New York, New York
ESSICA G. L. CLARKE
United States District Judge