Masino et al v. East Port Excavation & Utilities Contractors, Inc.

Filing 49

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Because no objections have been filed, the court concludes that the 48 R&R is not facially erroneous and thus the 48 R&R is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiffs is entitled to $31,052.00 inattorneys& #039; fees and $1,359.94 in costs in addition to the relief previously awarded by the court. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 8/27/2013. (Fwd. for jgt.). (Layne, Monique)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------)(
VINCENT MASINO, KEITH LOSCALZO,
FRANCISCO FERNANDEZ, PHILIP A F AICCO,
JAMES KILKENNY and ANTHONY ROBIBERO, as
Trustees and Fiduciaries of the PAVERS AND ROAD
BUILDERS DISTRICT COUNCIL WELFARE,
PENSION, ANNUITY AND APPRENTICESHIP,
SKILL IMPROVEMENT AND TRAINING FUNDS,

ORDER
I-.lH~V-04S0 (NGG) (VVP),.

hfL,i;';)J
IN CLERK'S (;FiCE
U.S. DI~:r'"T r- ...... "yr..: D,N,""

*

Plaintiffs,
-againstEAST PORT E)(CAVATION & UTILITIES
CONTRACTORS, INC.,

AOO 21 2Ot3

*

}

f

\~>'_ 8R00«t'tM:lCE
,

-

.<:...;.;:-

Defendant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------)(
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.
Plaintiffs Vincent Masino, Keith Loscalzo, Francisco Fernandez, Philip A Faicco, James
Kilkenny, and Anthony Robibero are the employer and employee representatives and the trustees
("Trustee Plaintiffs") of the Pavers and Road Builders District Council Welfare, Pension,
Annuity and Apprenticeship, Skill Improvement and Training Funds (the "Funds Plaintiff') and
collectively bring this action against Defendant East Port Excavation & Utilities Contractors, Inc.
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U .S.C. § 100 I et
seq. ("ERISA"). (See Compl. (Dkt. I); Am. Compl. (Dkt. 10).) On February 5, 2013, the court
granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs. (See Order (Dkt. 35).) On April 18, 2013, Plaintiffs
moved for attorneys' fees (Mot. for Fees (Dkt. 45)), and the court referred the motion to
Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (see May 9, 2013, Order).

On July 23, 2013, Judge Pohorelsky issued an R&R recommending that Plaintiffs be
awarded $31,052.00 in attorneys' fees and $1,359.94 in costs. (See R&R (Dkt. 48).) Judge
Pohorelsky ordered that any objections to his R&R were to be filed by August 9, 20\3. (Id. at
5.) No objections to Judge Pohorelsky's R&R were filed and the time to do so has passed.
In reviewing a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court "may adopt those portions of
the Report to which no objections have been made and which are not facially erroneous." La
Torres v. Walker, 216 F. Supp. 2d 157, 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); see also Porter v. Potter, 219 F.
App'x 112, 1 \3 (2d Cir. 2007) (failure to object waives further judicial review). The court
reviews de novo "those portions of the report ... to which objection is made." 28 U.S.c.
§ 636(b)(1).
Because no objections have been filed, the court concludes that the R&R is not facially
erroneous and thus the R&R is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiffs is entitled to $31,052.00 in
attorneys' fees and $1.359.94 in costs in addition to the relief previously awarded by the court.
The Clerk ofthe Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.
SO ORDERED.

s/NGG

O.

NjICHOLAS
GARAUFIS U
United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
2013
August

4'

2