Jarvis v. North American Globex Fund, L.P. et al

Filing 36

ORDER - There being no objection to Judge Walls Report, the Court adopts the Report. For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby: ORDERED that Judge Walls 34 Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety, and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a default judgment against the defendants in the amount recommended by Judge Wall; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case. Signed by Senior Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 9/30/11. Terminating 31 Motion for Default Judgment as granted; Terminating 15 Motion for Entry of Default as Moot. Ordered by Senior Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 9/30/11. (Coleman, Laurie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
JEFFERY L. JARVIS,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
11-cv-742 (ADS) (WDW)

-againstNORTH AMERICAN GLOBEX FUND, L.P.,
NORTHSTAR INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.,
and JAMES M. PEISTER,
Defendants,
-----------------------------------------------------------X

APPEARANCES:
Jeffrey B. Hulse, Esq.
Attorneys for the plaintiff
295 North Country Road
Sound Beach, NY 11789
NO APPEARANCE
North American Globex Fund, L.P.
Northstar International Group, Inc.
James M. Peister
SPATT, District Judge.
The plaintiff Jeffery L. Jarvis commenced this action on or about February 15,
2011, asserting various causes of action, including fraud, breach of contract, and breach
of fiduciary duty. On June 27, 2011, the Court entered a default judgment against the
defendants, and referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge William D. Wall
for an inquest as to damages. On September 13, 2011, Judge Wall issued a thorough

Report recommending that the plaintiff be awarded damages in the amount of: (1)
$247,165.54 in compensatory damages; (2) $101,020.26 in prejudgment interest; and (3)
post-judgment interest to be calculated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1961. To date, no
objection has been filed to Judge Wall’s Report and Recommendation.
In reviewing a report and recommendation, a court “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)(1)(C). “To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to
which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F.
Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citing Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189
(S.D.N.Y. 1985)). The Court has reviewed Judge Wall’s Report and finds it be
persuasive and without any legal or factual errors. There being no objection to Judge
Wall’s Report, the Court adopts the Report.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby:
ORDERED that Judge Wall’s Report and Recommendation is adopted in its
entirety, and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a default judgment
against the defendants in the amount recommended by Judge Wall; and it is further

2

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
September 30, 2011

/s/ Arthur D. Spatt
ARTHUR D. SPATT
United States District Judge

3