Press Clean Sales, LLC v. Maxum Trans Inc.

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for the Plaintiff in accordance with the R&R, and to close this case. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 2/10/2017. (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------PRESS CLEAN SALES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
-against-

ADOPTION ORDER
15-cv-3857 (ADS)(AYS)

MAXUM TRANS INC.,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
Hill Rivkins LLP
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
45 Broadway
Suite 1500
New York, NY 10006
By:
James A. Saville, Esq.,
John J. Sullivan, Esq.,
Andrew John Warner, Esq., Of Counsel
NO APPEARANCES:
Maxum Trans Inc.
The Defendant

SPATT, District Judge.
On July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff Press Clean Sales LLC (the “Plaintiff”) commenced this
action against the Defendant Maxum Trans Inc. (the “Defendant”) pursuant to the Carmack
Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706 et seq., to recover losses caused by a damaged shipment.
On December 3, 2015, the Clerk of the Court noted the default of the Defendant.
On June 6, 2016 the Plaintiff moved for default judgment. On June 17, 2016, this Court
referred the Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment to United States Magistrate Judge Anne Y.
Shields for a report and recommendation as to whether the default judgment should be granted
and, if so, whether damages should be awarded.
1

On January 26, 2017, Judge Shields issued a report and recommendation (the “R&R”)
recommending that default judgment be granted, and that the Plaintiff be awarded damages in
the amount of $154,926.54. The Plaintiff filed proof of service of the R&R to the Defendant on
the same day.
It has been more than fourteen days since the service of the R&R, and the parties have
not filed objections.
As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this
Court has reviewed the 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 R&R is adopted in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court is directed to
enter judgment for the Plaintiff in accordance with the R&R, and to close this case.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
February 10, 2016

__/s/ Arthur D. Spatt__
ARTHUR D. SPATT
United States District Judge

2