United States of America v. Hinds
Filing
9
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, the court affirms and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the court. Counsel for plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order upon defendant and file a declaration of service by August 12, 2011. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to enter a default judgment against defendant in the amount of $2,948.96 in principal, $1,274.92 in interest, $0.20 in per diem interest from February 25, 2011 through the date of judgment, post-judgment interest to be calculated in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1961, and $35 in costs, and to close the case. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 8/11/2011. (Zeehandelaar, Rachel)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------- X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
-against11-CV-169 (KAM)(LB)
KEVIN J. HINDS
Defendant.
--------------------------------------- X
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff United States of America (“plaintiff”)
brought this action against defaulting defendant Kevin J. Hinds
(“defendant”), alleging that defendant has failed to repay a
federal student loan.
(See generally ECF No. 1, Compl.)
Presently before the court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
issued by Magistrate Judge Bloom on June 27, 2011, recommending
that this court enter a default judgment against defendant in the
amount of $2,948.96 in principal, $1,274.92 in interest, $0.20 in
per diem interest from February 25, 2011 through the date of
judgment, post-judgment interest to be calculated in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 1961, and $35 in costs.
(ECF No. 7, R&R, at 8.)
The Report and Recommendation directed counsel for the
plaintiff to serve a copy of the Report and Recommendation on
defendant and to promptly file a declaration of service with the
court.
(R&R at 8.)
Plaintiff sent notice of the Report and
Recommendation to defendant on June 30, 2010 and filed a
declaration of service on the same date.
(ECF No. 8, Affidavit
of Service, dated June 30, 2011.)
As explicitly noted at the end of the Report and
Recommendation, any objections to the Report and Recommendation
were to be filed within fourteen days of receipt of the report.
(ECF No. 7, R&R, at 8.)
The statutory period for filing
objections has expired, and no objections to Magistrate Judge
Bloom’s Report and Recommendation have been filed.
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, the district
court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
28
Where no objection to the Report and
Recommendation has been filed, the district court “need only
satisfy itself that that there is no clear error on the face of
the record.”
Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10
(S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189
(S.D.N.Y. 1985).
Upon a thorough review of the Report and
Recommendation, and considering that the parties have failed to
object to any of Magistrate Judge Bloom’s thorough and wellreasoned recommendations, the court finds no clear error in
Magistrate Judge Bloom’s Report and Recommendation and hereby
affirms and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the opinion
of the court.
Counsel for plaintiff shall serve a copy of this
2
Memorandum and Order upon defendant and file a declaration of
service by August 12, 2011.
The Clerk of the Court is
respectfully directed to enter a default judgment against
defendant in the amount of $2,948.96 in principal, $1,274.92 in
interest, $0.20 in per diem interest from February 25, 2011
through the date of judgment, post-judgment interest to be
calculated in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1961, and $35 in costs,
and to close the case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
August 11, 2011
Brooklyn, New York
_________ __/s/
Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?