FREDERIC BLOCK, District Judge
On November 28, 2006, Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. issued a Report and Recommendation ("R R") recommending that default judgment be entered against the defendants in the amount of $8,493.75. The R R states that "[a]ny objections this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of the Court . . . within ten days of receiving this Report and Recommendation," R R at 8, and that" [f]ailure to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal the District Court's Order." Id. Plaintiff served a copy of the R R on the defendants by certified mail on November 30, 2006, see Docket Entry #14 (Certificate of Service), making objections due by December 18, 2006. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), 6(e). To date, no objections have been filed.
Where, as here, clear notice has been given of the consequences of failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R R without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); Mario v. P C Food Mkts., Inc.,, 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate's decision."). The Court will excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error, see Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000).
As no error appears on the face of the Magistrate Reyes' R R, the Court adopts it without de novo review. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment to the extent permitted by the R R.
SO ORDERED.