Parlin Funds LLC et al v. Gilliams et al
Filing
256
OPINION AND ORDER. I hereby adopt the thorough R & R in full and grant the plaintiff's motion insofar as it seeks entry of a default against these defendants, but that entry of judgment in a specific monetary amount be deferred until plaintiffs make a more comprehensive showing. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 10/23/2012) (lmb)
USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE F'-IL-E-D-:""'T.?Jr·-::2J~·~/~l~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
P ARLIN FUNDS LLC and THE PARLIN
FAMILY FOUNDATION,
Plaintiffs,
11 Civ. 2534(ALC)(MHD)
- against-
OPINION AND ORDER
TYRONE GILLIAMS, TL GILLIAMS, LLC,
EVERETTE L. SCOTT, JR., ELAM & SCOTT,
LLP, THE SCOTT LAW GROUP, L.L.C.,
VASSILIS MORFOPOULOS, BASIC
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
THE H.E.A.R.T.T. FOUNDATION and BRETT M.
SMITH a/kIa "BRETT ANGELSON,"
J.R. DELGADO and GLOBAL FORTRESS, INC.,
Defendants.
ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge:
I have reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
Michael H. Dolinger, dated June 15,2012 ("R & R"), which recommends that the plaintiffs'
motion for default judgment against defendants Tyrone Gilliams and TL Gilliams, LLC (the
"Gilliams defendants") be granted insofar as it seeks entry of a default against these defendants,
but that entry ofjUdgment in a specific monetary amount be deferred until plaintiffs make a more
comprehensive showing. On June 29,2012, the Gilliams defendants filed an objection (the
"Objection") to the R & R.
In their Objection, the Gilliams defendants "reassert their position in their response to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment" that they "have a right to invoke their Fifth
Amendment Right." However, "[o]bjections to a Report must be specific and clearly aimed at
particular findings in the magistrate judge's proposal." Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines,
602 F. Sup. 2d 485, 487 (S.D.N.¥. 2009). "Objections that are merely perfunctory responses
argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in
the original petition will not suffice to invoke de novo review of the magistrate's
recommendations." Vega v. Artuz, No. 97-cv-3775, 2002 WL 31174466, at *1 (S.D.N.¥. Sept.
30, 2002). Therefore, "a petitioner may not simply address the same arguments that the
magistrate judge considered and expect the Court to threat the filing seriously. Instead, a
petitioner ought to explain to the reviewing Court, citing proper authority, why the magistrate
judge's application oflaw to facts is legally unsound." Johnson v. Artus, No. 07-cv-5905, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2009) (citation and alterations omitted). Accordingly, "when a party makes
conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews
the Report and Recommendation only for clear error." Id.
In their Objection to the R & R, the Gilliams defendants simply reiterated their original
arguments and conclusively stated that they have a Fifth Amendment right not to respond to
discovery requests, and that plaintiffs "have other means of obtaining the information they
require." The Gillaims defendants do not cite any authority nor do they explain why Judge
Dolinger's conclusion against their arguments was legally unsound. Therefore, this Court has no
basis to reject the findings or conclusions of Judge Dolinger which I have determined, on
independent review, to be legally sound and free from any clear error. Accordingly, I hereby
adopt the thorough R & R in full and grant the plaintiffs motion insofar as it seeks entry of a
default against these defendants, but that entry ofjudgment in a specific monetary amount be
deferred until plaintiffs make a more comprehensive showing.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
October 23,2012
u_____
Andrew L. Carter, Jr.
United States District Judge
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?