09 - 39 60 - cv A ja y i v . D a v id UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HA VE P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F ECT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY FE DERA L RULE OF APP ELLATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND THI S COUR T’ S LOCAL RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A D O C U M EN T F I LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E LE CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY C I TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A C OP Y OF I T ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. A t a s tate d ter m o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y ork, on the 10 day of A ugus t , tw o thous and t en. th P RE S E NT : RO BE RT D. S AC K,

R E E N A R A G G I, GE RA RD E . L YNC H,

C i r cui tJudges .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- O L A D E L E A JA Y I, P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant , v. N o. 09- 3960- cv C A R O L D A V ID , S IL V IA M O N T A L B A N , D E P A R T M E N T O F H O M E L E S S S E R V IC E S , R . N E W M A N , P . G R O W E , E . G R E E N , Y . P I L G R I M, D ef endant s -Appel lees .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- A P P E A R IN G F O R A P P E L L A N T : O L A D E L E A J A Y I, pro se , F a rRo c k a wa y , NY. AP P E AR I NG F OR AP P E L L E E S : SU Z A N N E K . CO LT, A s s i s t a ntCor po r a t i on Co u n s e l ( P a me l a S e i d e rDo l g o w, Ca mi l l e D. B a rn e tt, on the bri ef

), f orM i chae l A . C ar dozo, C orpor at i on C ouns el of the C i ty of

N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork.2

A ppealf r om aj udgm entof

the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctCourtf orthe Southern D i s tr i ct o f N e w Y o rk (L e w is A . K ap la n , Judge ; A n d re w J . P e c k , M agis tr ate Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D thatthe j udgm entof the di s tr i ctcourtent er ed on S ept ember3, 2009, is AF F I RMED . Pr o s e pl ai nt i f

f O l adel e A

j ayi appeal s fr om an aw ar d of s um m ary j udgm enti n f avor of hi s form erem pl oyer , the N ew Y ork C i ty D epartm entof H om el es s Servi ces ( “D H S”) , and DHS e mp l o y e e s Ca r o l Da v i d , S i l v i a M o n t a l b a n , R. Ne wm a n , P . Gr o we , E . Gr e e n , a n d Y. Pi l gr i m ( col l ect i vel y, “the D H S def endant s ”) on A

j ayi ’ s cl ai m s of

empl oym ent di s cr i m i nat i on underthe A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n Em pl oym entA ctof 1967, 29 U . S. C . § 621 ets eq. ; the A m er i cans w i th D i sabi l i t i es A ctof 1990, 42 U . S. C . § 12112 ets eq. ; the N ew Y o rk S tat e H u m an R igh ts L aw , N . Y . E x ec . L aw § 2 9 0 et seq . ; an d th e N ew Y o rk C ity H um an R i ght s L aw , N . Y . C i ty A dm i n. C ode § 8- 101 ets eq. I n aw ar di ng s um m ary j udgm ent i n f avorof the D H S def

endant s , the di s tr i ctcourtr el i ed on the r eportand r ecomm endat i on of m agi s tr at e j udge A ndr ew J . Peck, t o w hi ch A j ayi fi l ed no obj ect i ons . W e as s um e the part i es ’ f amil i ari ty w i th the f

act s and the r ecor d of

pr i orpr ocee di ngs , w hi ch w e r ef er ence o n l y a s n e c e s s a ry t o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i rm. T hi s courthas adopt ed a rul e thatfa i l ur e t o obj ectt o a m agi s tr at e j udge’ s re portand
r ecomm endat i on w i thi n the pr es cr i bed t i m e li m i t“may oper at e as a w ai verof any f urther j udi ci al r evi ew of

the dec i s i on, as l ong as the part i es r ece i ve cl earnot i ce of the cons equenc es of thei rf ai l ur e t o obj ect . ” U ni t ed St at es v. M al e Juve ni l e ( 95- C R - 1074) , 121 F. 3d 34, 38 ( 2d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); se e a lso T h o m a s v . A rn , 4 7 4 U .S . 1 4 0 , 1 5 5 (1 9 8 5 ) (h o ld in g th a t co u rt o f a p p e a lsB ecaus e A j ayi does notchal l enge on appealthe br i ef anal ys i s added by the di s tr i ct 1 courtt o thatpr ovi ded i n the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on, any s uch arg u m en t i s d ee m ed w aive d . S ee N o rt o n v. S am ’s C lub , 14 5 F . 3 d 11 4 , 11 7 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). 3 m ay adopts uch w ai verrul e) . T he rul e appl i es t o both pr o s e and c ouns el ed l i t i gant s . See C ai dorv. O nondaga C ounty, 517 F. 3d 601, 604 ( 2d C i r . 2008). H er e, the m agi s tr at e j udge expr es s l y advi s ed A

j ayi that , “[ p] ur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 6 36 (b) ( 1) and R ul e 72( b) of the F e d e ra l R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re , the p a rties sh a ll h a v e ten (1 0 ) d a y s fr o m se rv ic e o f th is R eportt o f

i l e w r i tt en obj ect i ons , ” and that“ [ f ] ai l ur e t o f

i l e obj ect i ons w i l l r es ul ti n a w ai ver of thos e obj ect i ons f

orpurpos es of

appea l . ” A

j ayi v. D ep’ tof H om el es s Servs . , N o. 08 C i v. 3 6 4 9 , 2 0 0 9 W L 1 7 0 4 3 2 9 , at *1 4 (S . D . N . Y . Ju n e 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 ) (r ep o rtan d rec o m m en d ati o n ). T hus , the m agi s tr at e j udge pr ovi ded the r equi s i t e “expr es s w arni ng” of the cons equenc es of f ai l ur e t o f

i l e obj ect i ons . C ai dorv. O nondaga C ounty, 517 F. 3d at603. B ecaus e A j ayi f ai l ed t o f i l e any obj ect i ons des pi t e thi s w arni ng, he has w ai ved further j udi ci al r evi ew of the fin d in g s c o n tain e d in th e re p o rt. W h ile th e a b o v e -re fe re n c e d w a iv e r ru le is “ n o n ju risd ictio n a l” a n d , thu s, e x c u sa b le in th e in ter e sts o f ju stic e , R o ld a n v . R a c e tte, 9 8 4 F .2 d 8 5 , 8 9 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ), w e d e tec t n o b a sis fo r e x c u sin g th e fa ilu re to o b jec t h e re a s A

jay i’s a rg u m e n ts o n ap p e a l lac ksu b sta n tial m e rit l ar gel y f orthe r eas ons s t at ed by the m agis trat e judge , s uppl ement ed br i ef l y by the di s tr i ct court , see Spenc e v. Super i nt endent , G r eatM eadow C orr . Faci l i ty, 219 F. 3d 162, 174 ( 2d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). 1 Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e j u d g me n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u rti s AF F I RMED . FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ' H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk