served on all adversaries, with extra copies delivered to the chambers of the Honorable Mary Johnson Lowe, Room 803, and to the chambers of the undersigned, Room 503. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of those objections both in the District Court and on later appeal to the United States Court of Appeals. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir.1989); 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1) (West Supp.1992); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, 6(a), 6(e). 1 . The Magistrate Judge properly determined that even were the court to overlook the procedural bar, it would still dismiss petitioner’s indictment-related claims on their merits. See Lopez v. Riley, 865 F.2d 30, 31 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel. Mintzer v. Dros, 403
holding the prosecutor is required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury holding that the government is not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial holding that claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence before the state grand jury may not be raised on habeas where a properly instructed petit jury heard all relevant evidence and convicted holding that where witness refused to take the oath and testify his grand jury testimony should not have been admitted because he was not subject to cross examination before the grand jury