10-3020 -cv

C o o p e r v . Lo c a l 3 2 B J , S E IU UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUM M AR

Y O RD ER
R UL I NGS BY SUM M ARY ORD E R DO NO T HAVE PR E CE DENTI AL E F F E CT . C I TATI O N TO A SU M M ARY O RD ER F I L ED O N O R AFT ER J A NUA R Y 1, 2007, I S P E R M I T T E D A ND I S G OV E R NE D B Y F E D E R A L R U L E O F A PPE L L ATE P RO CED U RE 3 2 .1 AND T HI S C OU RT ’ S L O C A L R U L E 32. 1. 1. W HEN CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORD E R I N A D OCU M E NT F I L E D W I T H THI S C OU RT , A P A RT Y M US T CI TE EI THER TH E F E D E R A L A PPE N D I X O R AN EL ECTRO N I C D ATABASE ( WI T H T HE NOT A T I ON “ SU M M ARY O RD ER ”). A PARTY CI TI N G A SU M M ARY O RD ER M U ST S ERVE A CO PY O F I T ON AN Y PARTY N O T REPRE SENTED B Y CO U N SEL . At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 18 th day of May , two thousand eleve n. PRES ENT: RA L PH K . WI NT ER, RO SEM AR

Y S. POO L ER, B ARRI NG TO N D . PA RKER, Circuit Judges
.

_______________________________________________ Gar y Cooper, Plaintif f-Appellant , v. No. 10-3020-c v L ocal 32B J , SEIU, Allied International Union, Defendants-A

ppellees
.

______________________________________________ FOR APPEL LANT: Gar y Cooper, pro s e , Br ookly n, NY. FOR DEF ENDAN T-APPEL L EE L OCAL32BJ, SEIU: Andre w L . Strom, Office of the Gene ral Counsel for

SEIU L ocal 32BJ, New Yor

k, NY. FOR DEF ENDAN T-APPEL L EE AL L I ED I NT ERNAT I ONAL

UN I ON : Da vid A. Mintz, We iss man & Mintz L L C, New Yor

k, NY. Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of2

New Y ork (Stein, J. ). UP ON DU E C ON SID ER AT ION , i ti s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDG ED AND DECREED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt G ary Coo pe r a pp e a ls pro se from the district cour t’s judgme nt dismiss ing his c laims alleg ing violations of the L abor Ma nag ement Reportingand Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U .S.C. § 411 et seq. , and the L abor Ma nag ement Relations Act ( “L MRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185 et seq. , and deny ing his motion for lea

ve to amend his c omplaint. W e assume the parties’ familiarity

with the fac ts and proce dural history of the c ase. As an initial matter, this Court has held that a litiga nt’s failure to file objections to a
m agi s tra t e j u d ge’ s re p o rtan d re co m m en d at i o n , ev enwh enth atl i t i gan ti s p ro ce ed i n g pro s e , waives a ny challeng e to the re port on appe al. Se eCe ph as v . Na sh , 328 F.3d 98, 107 ( 2d Cir. 20 03 ) ( “ As a

ru le , a pa rt y ’s fa ilure to o bje c t to any purp or te d e rr or or omi ssi on in a ma g istrate judge ’s re port waive s further judicial revie w of the point.”) . A pro s elitigant must be g iven
no tic e of thi s r ule ; no tic e is s uf

fi c ie nt i f i t in fo rm s th e lit ig ant t hat th e fa ilure to t ime ly

ob je c t w ill result in the waive r of f

urther judicia l reviewand cites pe rtinent statutory and civil rules of authority
. See F

rank v. J ohnson , 9 68 F .2 d 2 98 , 2 99 (2 d Ci r. 19 92 ); Small v. Sec ’y of He alth and Human Serv

s ., 892 F.2d 15, 16 ( 2d Cir. 1989) ( pro se party ’s fa ilure to object to re port and
rec ommendation does not waive right to appellate r eview unle ss report e x plicitly states that failure to object will prec lude appe llate re view and spe cifica lly cites 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) , as well as Rules 72, 6(a ), and f ormer Rule 6( e) of

the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e). He re , th e ma g istrate jud g e g ave Coo pe r a de qu ate no tic e that he wa s r e qu ir e d to fi le objections to the repor

t and re commendation, and spe cifica lly informed him that fa ilure to object3

to any portion of the re port would prec lude his rig ht to appellate r eview, c iting the pe rtinent statutory and civil rules. Ac cording ly , Cooper has w aived his right to appellate r eview of the iss ue s d isc us se d in

the ma g istrate jud g e ’s repo rt a nd re c omm e nd atio n. In a

ny e ve nt, be c a

us e Cooper does not c halleng e the district cour t’s dismiss al of his claims under § 104 of the LMRDA
a s mo ot, or

the dis mis sa l of

his c on str

ue d d uty of fa ir repr e se ntatio n c la ims a s unti me ly , th e se claims are abandone d. Se eLoS ac c o v . Ci ty

of M idd le tow n , 71 F.3d 88, 92- 93 (2d Cir. 1995) (holdingthat claims raise d below but not raised on a ppeal a re a bandoned, e ven as to pro s e litigants). Neve rtheless, followinga de novo revie w of the r ecor d, we c onclude that the district c ourt proper ly adopted the ma g istrate judg e’s r eport a nd rec ommendation, and cor rec tly g rante d the Def endants’ motions to dismis s and denie d Cooper’s motion to amend his complaint. We thus aff irm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same r easons a s set forth in the mag istrate judg e’s we ll-rea soned and thorough repor t and re commendation. We haveconsidere d Coo pe r’ s argume nts on

a pp e a l, a nd fi nd the m to be wi tho ut m e ri t. For the fore g oing r easons, the judgment of the district cour t is hereby

AFF I RMED. F OR TH E CO UR T: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk