with the SDHR. (Defs.’ Objs. at 12-15). Defendants further fault the magistrate judge for not ruling on the individual plaintiff-intervenors’ ability to represent the interest of the proposed subclass, claiming that no individual plaintiff-intervenor could adequately represent the subclass. (Id.) The court finds that defendants waived their right to object to NOW’s ability to represent men in the proposed subclass when defendants failed to contest the magistrate judge’s Initial Report which found NOW capable of being a class representative for men and women (though it could only sue for women). (Initial Report at 26, 27). Such inaction constitutes a waiver of further objection in regards to this issue. See Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The court’s decision may not be changed or
holding that objections are required when challenging findings actually set out in a magistrates recommendation as well as the magistrates failure to make additional findings holding that objections are required when challenging findings actually set out in magistrates recommendation as well as magistrates failure to make additional findings holding an argument waived on appeal for failure to raise the issue in objection to the magistrates recommendation holding defendants failure to object timely waives its right to challenge expert report holding that failure to object timely to a magistrates report operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrates decision