Kennedy v. Medgen, Inc.

Filing 24

ADOPTION ORDER - On January 8, 2016, Judge Shields issued a 19 report recommending that the Court deny the Plaintiffs 12 motion without prejudice and with leave to renew upon the submission of additional information substantiating the Defendants alleged infringement of the Plaintiffs copyrighted image (the R&R). On January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a letter motion styled as a motion for reconsideration, which appears to contain the additional information requested by Judge Shields in th e R&R. However, the Plaintiff did not file specific objections to Judge Shields R&R. Accordingly, the January 8, 2016 R&R is adopted in its entirety. The Court further denies the Plaintiffs 20 motion for reconsideration without prejudice and with leave to renew as a formal motion for default judgment as specified in the R&R. Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 3/7/2016. (Coleman, Laurie)

FILED 
CLERK 

3/7/2016 10:32 am

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
LONG ISLAND OFFICE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------X
STEPHEN KENNEDY,
Plaintiff,

ADOPTION ORDER
14-cv-5843 (ADS)(AYS)

-againstMEDGEN, INC.,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
Edward C. Greenberg P.C.
Attorney for the Plaintiff
570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10022
SPATT, District Judge.

On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff Stephen Kennedy (the “Plaintiff”) commenced this
action against the Defendant Medgen, Inc. (the “Defendant”) alleging copyright infringement
and removal of copyright management information.
On February 23, 2015, the Clerk of the Court noted the default of the Defendant.
On July 2, 2015, the Plaintiff moved for a default judgment.
On July 7, 2015, the Court referred the Plaintiff’s motion to United States Magistrate
Judge Anne Y. Shields for a report recommending whether the motion for default judgment
should be granted, and if so, whether damages should be awarded, including reasonable
attorneys’ fees.
On January 8, 2016, Judge Shields issued a report recommending that the Court deny the
Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice and with leave to renew upon the submission of additional
information substantiating the Defendant’s alleged infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted
image (the “R&R”).
1

On January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a letter motion styled as a motion for
reconsideration, which appears to contain the additional information requested by Judge Shields
in the R&R. However, the Plaintiff did not file specific objections to Judge Shields’ R&R.
As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this
Court has reviewed the January 8, 2016 R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in
both its reasoning and its result. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015
WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without
objections for clear error).
Accordingly, the January 8, 2016 R&R is adopted in its entirety. The Court further
denies the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration without prejudice and with leave to renew as a
formal motion for default judgment as specified in the R&R.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
March 7, 2016

_/s/ Arthur D. Spatt___
ARTHUR D. SPATT
United States District Judge

2