Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JACQUELINE SILVER,
15-CV-3462 (ARR) (ST) Plaintiff,
Opinion & Order — against —
Not for electronic or print SERGENT SCOTT SALESSANDRO, P.O. LUIGI publication GALANO, P.O. NICHOLAS KOSTAS, P.O.
EDWARD STINE, CAPTAIN JOHN DOE 5,
Defendants.
ROSS, United States District Judge:
This Court received the Report and Recommendation on the instant case on October 28, 2019, from the Honorable Steven L. Tiscione, United States Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 96. Judge Tiscione instructed the parties to file any objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days from service of the R&R. Id. at 9. The R&R was served on plaintiff by mail on October 28, 2019. ECF No. 97. Taking into account the three-day extension afforded parties receiving service by mail, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), plaintiff was required to file her objection by November 14, 2019. Plaintiff filed an untimely objection to the R&R on November 18, 2019, four days after the objection deadline. ECF No. 99.
The Court reviews “de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also Brissett v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth. , No. 09-CV-874 (CBA)(LB), 2011 WL 1930682, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2011). Where no timely objections have been filed, “the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Finley v. Trans Union, Experian, *2 Equifax , No. 17-CV-0371 (LDH)(LB), 2017 WL 4838764, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2017) (quoting Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imports Ltd. , 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)). Having reviewed the record, I find no clear error. Therefore, I affirm my Order Adopting the Report and Recommendations. ECF No. 98. Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from an Order or Judgment is denied.
SO ORDERED.
_______/s/________________ Allyne R. Ross United States District Judge Dated: November 20, 2019
Brooklyn, New York
2