Sea Trade Maritime Corporation et al v. Stelios Coutsodontis

Filing 377

ORDER for 366 Report and Recommendations. It is hereby ORDERED that the Objections are overruled and the Report is adopted. For the reasons stated in the Report, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment (1) for Defendant Coutsodontis in the amount of $1,170.645.87, plus any accrued interest, currently residing in escrow; and (2) for Plaintiff Peters as to the remaining balance in the escrow account. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 2/27/2019) (cf) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
SEA TRADE MARITIME CORP. et. al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
-against:
:
:
STELIOS COUTSODONTIS, et. al.,
:
Defendants. :
:
-------------------------------------------------------------X

1/27/2019

9 Civ. 488 (LGS)
ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2018, Judge Pitman filed a Report and Recommendation
(the “Report”) recommending (1) that Defendant Stelios Coutsodontis is entitled to
$1,170.645.87, or one-half the proceeds from the sale of M/V ATHENA, plus any accrued
interest, currently residing in escrow, and (2) that the balance of the escrow account be distributed
to Plaintiff George Peters;
WHEREAS, the Report stated that the parties “have fourteen (14) days from the receipt of
this Report to file written objections”;
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2019, the parties filed a letter requesting that the deadline
to file objections be extended to January 21, 2019. The Order dated December 19, 2019, granted
the extension;
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2019, the parties filed objections to the Report (the
“Objections”) (Dkt. 371-72). The parties filed responses to the Objections on February 25, 2019
(Dkt. 375-76);
WHEREAS, no Objections were timely filed;
WHEREAS, in reviewing a Report and Recommendation of a magistrate judge, a district

judge “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). “In a case such as this one, where 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.” Poulos, v. City of New York, No. 14 Civ. 3023, 2018 WL 3745661, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted);
WHEREAS, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. It is hereby
ORDERED that the Objections are overruled and the Report is adopted. For the reasons
stated in the Report, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment (1) for Defendant
Coutsodontis in the amount of $ 1,170.645.87, plus any accrued interest, currently residing in
escrow; and (2) for Plaintiff Peters as to the remaining balance in the escrow account.
Dated: February 27, 2019
New York, New York

2