Human Rights Law, N.Y. City Admin. Code § § 8-101 to -181. In ordering dismissal, the district court adopted the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis, to which Sepe filed no objections. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and the record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. Failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within the prescribed time limit “may operate as a waiver of any further judicial review of the decision, as long as the parties receive clear notice of the consequences of their failure to object.” United States v. Male Juvenile (95-CR-1074), 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir.1997); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) (<HOLDING>). This rule applies to both pro se and
holding rule 38 applies to frivolous criminal appeals as well as civil appeals holding that the court of appeals may not overrule modify or withdraw language from a previously published decision of the court of appeals holding the court of appeals had subject matter jurisdiction notwithstanding a defendants waiver of appellate rights in a plea agreement holding that court of appeals may adopt such waiver rule holding superior court civil rule 101a1 a nullity for the superior court may not adopt a rule which abridges any substantive right