Opinion
09 CV 3888 (SJF) (ETB).
June 15, 2011
ORDER
On September 1, 2009, pro se plaintiff initiated this action against the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Anthony Vano, Thomas Varghese, Gregory Wiley, William Whelthy, Richard Gambino, Deborah S. Dammer, Barbara L. Severance, Reachel Combs, Nonie Manion, Mark Volk and Ellen Mindel (collectively "defendants") alleging employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq. (as amended) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et. seq. (as amended). On July 12, 2010, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On July 19, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and the motion to dismiss was subsequently denied as moot.
On January 15, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Pursuant to a referral, Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle issued a Report and Recommendation on May 17, 2011 (the "Report") which recommended that defendants' motion be granted. No objections have been filed to the Report. For the reasons stated herein, the Report is accepted in its entirety.
I. Discussion
Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits magistrate judges to conduct proceedings on dispositive pretrial matters without the consent of the parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Any portion of a report and recommendation on dispositive matters, to which a timely objection has been made, is reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). However, "general or conclusory objections, or objections which merely recite the same arguments presented to the magistrate judge, are reviewed for clear error." Johnson v. Connolly, No. 9:07-CV-1237, 2010 WL 2628747, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 25, 2010). See also Vega v. Artuz, No. 97 Civ. 3775, 2002 WL 31174466, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2002) (noting that "objections that are merely perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original [papers] will not suffice to invoke de novo review"). The court is not required to review the factual findings or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to which no proper objections are interposed. See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no timely objection has been made, the district judge need only be satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Baptichon v. Nevada State Bank, 304 F. Supp. 2d 451, 453 (E.D.N.Y. 2004), affd, 125 F. App'x. 374 (2d Cir. 2005);Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). Whether or not proper objections have been filed, the district judge may, after review, accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
No objections have been filed to Magistrate Boyle's Report. The report clearly states that any written objections to the Report must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service of the Report and cites to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 6(a), 72(b). See Report at 26. On May 31, 2011 plaintiff filed a letter stating that he was "in receipt" of the Report and seeking a sixty (60) day extension to file written objections, which was denied. See ECF Nos. 46-47.
Upon review, the Court is satisfied that the Report is not facially erroneous. Accordingly, the Court accepts and adopts the Report as an Order of the Court.
II. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.