Local 355 United Service Workers Union, IUJAT et al v. SR Mechanical Design Corp

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM and ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: There being no error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face of MJ Kuo's Report and Recommendation 9 . Therefore, the Court adopts it without de novo review. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 2/10/2017. (Innelli, Michael)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------x LOCAL 355 UNITED SERVICE WORKERS UNION, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF JOURNEYMEN AND ALLIED TRADES; UNITED WELFARE FUND – SECURITY DIVISION AND THE TRUSTEES THEREOF; UNITED WELFARE FUND – WELFARE DIVISION AND THE TRUSTEES THEREOF, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Case No. 15-CV-5196-FB-PK Petitioners, -againstSR MECHANICAL DESIGN CORP., Respondent. ----------------------------------------------x BLOCK, Senior District Judge: On January 17, 2017, Magistrate Judge Kuo issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the petitioners’ motion for a default judgment be granted, and that a judgment in the total amount of $54,149.28 be entered in their favor. The R&R advised that any objections “must be filed within 14 days of service of this report,” and that “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal any order or judgment entered based on [it].” R&R at 7. The R&R was served on the respondent on January 18, 2017, making objections due on February 1, 2017. To date, no objections have been filed. Where 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 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); 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, however, 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 error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face of the R&R. Therefore, the Court adopts it without de novo review. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. SO ORDERED. /S/ Frederic Block______________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York February 10, 2017 2

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?