Opinion
98 CIV. 6758 (DLC)
June 13, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Internet Management Information Systems, Inc. brought this action in 1998 for breach of contract. On March 16, 2000, a partial final judgment was entered which resolved the principal action. All that remained outstanding was the third party action, which is the subject of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
On July 9, 1999, the defendants filed a third-party complaint against Uche Awkuba ("Awkuba"). On September 17, 1999, the Court entered a default against Awkuba and referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Ellis for an inquest on damages. On April 17, 2001, Judge Ellis issued his Report and Recommendation ("Report") by this Court, recommending that the third party action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. No objections to the Report have been received.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing the Report, I "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). "To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985); see also Pizarro v. Bartlett, 776 F. Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (noting that a court may accept a report if it is "not facially erroneous"). The Court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which objection is made. See id.; United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997).
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the Report, I find no facial errors in it. In this case, over fifteen months have passed since Obioha last communicated with the Court. He has provided the Court with no current address or means of reaching him. He never supplied the Court with any evidence to support his damage claim. Magistrate Judge Ellis issued his Report two months ago, to which no objections have been made. Although Obioha did not receive actual notice that failure to comply with court orders would result in the dismissal of his third party complaint, as third party plaintiff, it was Obioha's responsibility to move the case forward.
I therefore accept and adopt the Report. Obioha's claim against the third-party defendant is dismissed with prejudice.
SO ORDERED: