Eastern Savings Bank, FSB v. Bright et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, After careful review of the record, the Court finds the R&R to be correct, well-reasoned, and free of any clear error. The Court, therefore, adopts the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and to close this case. Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 6/24/2013. (Fwd. for jgt.) (Layne, Monique)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------x
EASTERN SAVINGS BANK, FSB,

l

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM & ORbER

.,

-againstBRENDA BRIGHT, et aI.,

JUN 27 2013

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------x~~

• •

VIT ALIANO, D.J.
Plaintiff Eastern Savings Bank, FSB ("Eastern") brought this action against detendants
Brenda Bright ("Bright") and Sperry Associates Federal Credit Union ("Sperry Associates") to
foreclose on a mortgage on real property. On July 5,2012, this Court granted plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment against Bright and referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go for a
Report and Recommendation ("R&R") to determine the amount of the judgment. On March 21,
2013, Magistrate Judge Go issued an R&R recommending the Court award plaintiff judgment
against Bright in the amount of$326,333.56 plus interest at a daily rate of $66.62 from April 1,
2013, until the entry of judgment based on the following total damages: $209,634.55 in principal,
$76,713.75 in interest on principal plus interest at a daily rate of$59.96 from Apri11, 2013 until the
entry of judgment, $27,017.47 in unpaid escrow advances, $4347.10 in interest on the unpaid
escrow and at a daily rate of$6.66 from April 1, 2013 until the entry of judgment, $3477.16 in late
fees, $3925.83 in attorney's fees and $1217.70 in costs. Magistrate Judge Go also recommended
default judgment be entered against Sperry Associates foreclosing its interest in the premises and
that plaintiff be granted leave to file a motion to amend the judgment to seek additional attorney's
fees after they are incurred. Plaintiff was directed to submit a proposed order of foreclosure and sale
by April 8, 2013. They did so on April 1,2013.
1

'J

In reviewing a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, a district judge "may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)( I). Further, a district judge is required to "determine de
novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3); see also Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110,116 (2d Cir. 2010). But, where

no timely objection has been made, the "district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record" to accept a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. 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)).
Any objections to this order were to be filed by April 8, 2013. No objections have been
filed. After careful review of the record, the Court finds the R&R to be correct, well-reasoned, and
free of any clear error. The Court, therefore, adopts the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the
Court.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and to close this case.
SO ORDERED,

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
June 24, 2013

s/ENV

N.

AtiANO

ERIC
VIT
United States District Judge

2