Case ID: f-appx_508/html/0082-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sinatra YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-3856.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 28, 2013.
    Sinatra Young, Brooklyn, NY, Appellant pro se.
    Robert I. Steiner and Sean R. Flanagan, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, New York, NY, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
      . Because Judge John M. Walker, Jr., originally assigned to this panel, recused himself from this case, the remaining two judges issue this order in accordance with Second Circuit Internal Operating Procedure E(b).
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Sinatra Young, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s sica sponte dismissal of his defamation action pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

The Second Circuit has “adopted the rule that failure to object timely to a magistrate judge’s report may operate as a waiver of any further judicial review of the decision, as long as the parties receive clear notice of the consequences of their failure to object.” United States v. Male Juvenile (95-CR-1074), 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir.1997). The magistrate judge gave Young adequate notice that he was required to file objections to the report and recommendation, specifically informing him that failure to do so would result in a waiver of his right to appellate review and citing the pertinent statutory and civil rules as well as relevant case law. Young did not object and consequently waived his right to appellate review. Moreover, in light of the record as a whole, the “interests of justice” do not warrant excusing Young’s default. See Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir.2003).

We have considered Young’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.