Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 023 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: "(SUMMARY ORDER)." UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/), THE PARTY CITING THE SUMMARY ORDER MUST FILE AND SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED. IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED. Brian PORTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Defendant-Appellee.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff pro se Brian Porter appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Amon, J.), dismissing the employment discrimination action he brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., for failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

The report and recommendation of the magistrate judge ("R R") pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) concluded that Porter had failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to each of his three discrimination claims, and recommended that summary judgment be granted. The docket sheet indicates that objections by Porter (if any) were due on September 12, 2005. The district court granted an extension to September 23, 2005. Porter did not file any objections before the extended deadline; on September 28 the district court adopted the R R in its entirety and dismissed Porter's complaint.

"[F]ailure to object timely to a magistrate's report operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrate's decision." Small v. Sec'y of Health Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam); see also Marcella v. Capital Dist. Physicians' Health Plan, Inc., 293 F.3d 42, 46 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38-39 (2d Cir. 1997). We may excuse this waiver in the interest of justice, see Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d at 39, but we decline to exercise our discretion to do so here, as the record reflects no injustice that would be remedied by reaching the merits of Porter's claims.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgement of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PORTER v. POTTER
(Mar 12, 2007)