Matsco v. Prattis et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM and ORDER ADOPTING MJ Gold's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION awarding damages. See memorandum and order for further details. There will be no formal memorandum and order mailed to counsel. Ordered by Senior Judge Frederic Block on 2/18/2010. (Innelli, Michael)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x MATSCO, a division of WELLS FARGO, N.A., Plaintiff, -againstSUSAN MARIE PATTIS and VIP VETERINARY HOSPITAL, P.C., Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------x Appearances: For the Plaintiff: MICHAEL H. LEVISON, ESQ. Pitney Hardin, LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 BLOCK, Senior District Judge: On January 27, 2010, Magistrate Judge Gold issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that a default judgment be entered against defendant
Susan Marie Pattis ("Pattis")1 in the amount of $445,600.18, see R&R at 2, with interest accruing

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Case No. 09-CV-3362 (FB) (SMG)

on $445,575.18 at a rate of 18 percent per annum from March 16, 2009, to the date judgment is entered, see id. at 2-3. The R&R also stated that failure to object within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. See id. at 6. Plaintiff's attorney mailed copies of the R&R to Pattis via regular and certified mail on January 28, 2010;2 no objections have been filed.

Plaintiff's claims against defendant VIP Veterinary Hospital, P.C. ("VIP"), were stayed on November 16, 2009, because VIP filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The R&R was mailed to Pattis at the billing address listed on the Master Billing Finance Agreement here at issue, which she executed. See Compl., Ex. 1.
2

1

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 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); no such error appears here. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R without de novo review and directs the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the R&R. SO ORDERED. ___________________________________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York February 18, 2010

2