FREDERIC BLOCK, District Judge
On February 24, 2006, Magistrate Judge Pollak issued a Report and Recommendation ("R R") on the amount of damages to which plaintiff was entitled. The R R stated that "[a]ny objections to this [R R] must be filed . . . within ten (10) days of receipt of this report[,]" and that "[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court's order." See R R at 18; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). None of the parties has objected to the R R.
If 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."). Plaintiff served a copy of the R R on the defendants on July 11, 2006, via regular mail, thereby providing them with notice of the RR and informing them of their rights to object and the consequences of not so doing. See Docket No. 14.
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 in ruling against the defaulting party. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000). Here, nothing on the face of the R R suggests plain error. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R R without de novo review.
SO ORDERED.