Norguard Insurance Company v. RCJ Construction Services Corporation et al
MEMORANDUM and ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation 31 without de novo review and directs the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the Report and Recommendation. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 3/6/2018. (Innelli, Michael)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case No. 1:14-cv-00432-FB-RER
-againstRCJ CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
CORPORATION, I.T.D. CONTRACTING
INC., TD CONSTRUCTION SERVICES,
IAN RITCHIE Individually, ATHENA
ROBINSON also known as Athina
Robinson, and KHALID CHOUDHARY
For the Plaintiff:
MARGARET J. LESZKIEWICZ
ROBERT S. SAXON
Meyers Saxon & Cole
3620 Quentin Road
Brooklyn, NY 11234
For the Defendants:
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
Plaintiff Norguard Insurance Company (“Norguard”) seeks entry of default
judgment against defendants RCJ Construction Services Corporation (“RCJ”); I.T.D.
Contracting, Inc. (“ITD”); Ian Ritchie; and Khalid Choudhary. The Court referred the
matter to the assigned magistrate judge. On January 19, 2018, Magistrate Judge
Reyes issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the entry of
default judgment against RCJ and ITD in the amount of $378,910.89.
As Magistrate Judge Reyes noted, Norguard has not obtained a notation of
default from the Clerk of Court as to Ritchie and Choudhary, as required by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). See New York v. Green, 420 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir.
2005) (describing “two-step process for obtaining default judgment”). Moreover,
Norguard voluntarily dismissed Choudhary from the case and has not sought relief
from that dismissal. The Court therefore considers Norguard’s motion only as to RCJ
and ITD. Norguard may renew its motion for default judgment as to Ritchie if and
when it obtains the necessary entry of default by the Clerk.
The R&R warned that failure to file objections within fourteen days of receipt
waives the right to appeal the district court’s order. No objections to the R&R have
been filed, and the time to file objections has elapsed.
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.
/S/ Frederic Block_
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
March 6, 2018
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?