Pagan v. Lyfe Brand, LLC, 1:16-cv-00338

Pro se plaintiff Daniel J. Pagan filed a trademark infringement complaint against Lyfe Brand, LLC and The Garment Group, Inc. on January 15, 2016.
A summons issued that same day and the action was referred to Magistrate Judge Netburn for pretrial supervision.
Magistrate Judge Netburn ordered Pagan (May 20, 2016) to explain whether he had served defendants by the Rule 4(m) deadline (April 14, 2016) and warned that failure to do so could lead to dismissal.
Pagan did not comply with the May 20 order and did not file any papers for over five months.
On June 24, 2016, Magistrate Judge Netburn recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), noting prior warnings and offering Pagan an opportunity to object.
No objections were filed; the district court reviewed for clear error, found none, and adopted the report, dismissing the complaint without prejudice and directing the Clerk to close the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the action should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)	Pagan did not file a response or show service; no argument presented in the record	Defendants relied on court process and the Rule 4(m) deadline (implicit)	Court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b)
Whether magistrate's report may be adopted without de novo review when no objections filed	Pagan did not object	Defendants did not object or oppose adoption	Court adopted the report without de novo review because no objections were filed and there was no clear error

Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758 (2d Cir. 2002) (failure to timely object to a magistrate judge's report waives further judicial review when parties received clear notice)
Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (district court may adopt a magistrate's report absent de novo review if there is no clear error on the face of the record)