Maldonado-Lopez v. Cajmant LLC et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 59 Motion for Sanctions against Defendant Vogler. For the reasons stated herein, Magistrate Judge Reyes' Report and Recommendation dated May 17, 2017, is adopted in its entirety and the instant motion (Rec. Doc. 59 ) is GRANTED and the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter default against Defendant Robert W. Vogler. Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 8/3/2017. C/M (Barrett, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Ft _ E
U. ~ . DISTRICT COURT
EDUARDO MALDONADO LOPEZ, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
CAJMANT, LLC, WHEATFIELD DISTRIBUTORS
LLC, JOHN SCHMIDT, ROSE SCHMIDT,
MARCELO CAJAMARCA and ROBERT W. VOGLER
TOWNES, United States District Judge:
In February 2015, plaintiff Eduardo Maldonado Lopez commenced this action pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. ("FLSA"), New York common
law, and New York Labor Law, alleging that the defendants violated those laws by failing to
provide overtime pay and making illegal deductions from employees' paychecks. In October
2016, after Defendant Robert W. Vogler failed to answer the Second Amended Complaint or
respond to any discovery demands, Plaintiff moved for entry of default against him pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. (Rec. No. 50). Magistrate Judge Reyes denied the motion for failure to
comply with the rule's notice requirements, but stated in his Memorandum & Order that "Vogler
[was] deemed on notice of the consequences of continued non-compliance with discovery
orders." (Rec. No. 51). Afterwards, Vogler continued to refuse all communication with Plaintiff
or respond to any discovery requests. Plaintiff once again moved for entry of default under Rule
37. (Rec. No. 59). Judge Reyes issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") recommending
entering default against Defendant Vogler in light of Vogler's continued refusal to participate in
this litigation and the notice provided to Vogler by this Court's previous order.
The R&R specified that objections were due by June 2, 2017, and advised defendant that
"[fjailure to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order."
(May 17, 2017 ECF entry) (citing cases). Plaintiff's counsel promptly provided notice to both
addresses appearing on the instant motion. (Rec. Doc. 60). The Court has not received any
objections to date.
A district court is not required to review the factual or legal conclusions of a magistrate
judge as to those portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed.
See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Nonetheless, when no objections are filed, many
courts seek to satisfy themselves "that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note (1983 Addition); see also Edwards v. Town of
Huntington, No. 05 Civ. 339 (NGG) (AKT), 2007 WL 2027913, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2007).
Accordingly, this Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error on the face of the record. The
Court finds no clear error, and therefore adopts the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
For the reasons stated above, Magistrate Judge Reyes' Report and Recommendation
dated May 17, 2017, is adopted in its entirety and the instant motion (Rec. Doc. 59) is
GRANTED and the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter default against Defendant
Robert W. Vogler.
Dated: August 3, 2017
Brooklyn, New York
United States District Judge
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?