Macolor v. Libiran et al

Filing 87

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 80 Motion for Default Judgment, filed by Dustin Macolor, 86 Report and Recommendations: In a Report and Recommendation filed on March 25, 2016, Magistrate Judge Ellis recommended that judgeme nt be entered for Plaintiff in the amount of $15,088.95 in damages, $58,251.96 in attorneys' fees and costs, and $2,756.75 in prejudgment interest, totaling $76,097.66. The Report and Recommendation advised the parties t hat they had fourteen days from service of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections, and warned that failure to timely file such objections would result in waiver of any right to object. Nevertheless, as of the date of this Order, no o bjections have been filed and no request for an extension of time to object has been made. Accordingly, the parties have waived the right to object to the Report and Recommendation or to obtain appellate review. See Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 29 8, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); see also Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2008). Despite that waiver, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, unguided by objections, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be well reasone d and grounded in fact and law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment consistent with the Report and Recommendation and to close this case. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/13/2016) (tn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
DUSTIN MACOLOR,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
:
RHANDY R. LIBIRAN, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

04/13/2016
14-CV-4555 (JMF)
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

JESSE M. FURMAN, District Judge:
On September 16, 2016, the Court entered default on consent against Defendants Rhandy
R. Libiran, American Manpower Resource Provider Inc., Axis Point Alternative Solutions, Inc.,
and American healthcare Facility Management Group, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). On the
same day, the Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Ellis to hold an inquest for purposes
of fixing damages and entry of a final judgment against Defendants. In a Report and
Recommendation filed on March 25, 2016, Magistrate Judge Ellis recommended that judgement
be entered for Plaintiff in the amount of $15,088.95 in damages, $58,251.96 in attorneys’ fees
and costs, and $2,756.75 in prejudgment interest, totaling $76,097.66.
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district 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). A district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also United
States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). To accept those portions of the report to
which no timely objection has been made, however, a district court need only satisfy itself that

there is no clear error on the face of the record. See, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F.
Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). This clearly erroneous standard also applies when a party
makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments. See,
e.g., Ortiz v. Barkley, 558 F. Supp. 2d 444, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
In the present case, the Report and Recommendation advised the parties that they had
fourteen days from service of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections, and
warned that failure to timely file such objections would result in waiver of any right to object.
Nevertheless, as of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed and no request for an
extension of time to object has been made. Accordingly, the parties have waived the right to
object to the Report and Recommendation or to obtain appellate review. See Frank v. Johnson,
968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); see also Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601 (2d Cir.
2008). Despite that waiver, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, unguided
by objections, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be well reasoned and grounded in
fact and law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment consistent with the Report and
Recommendation and to close this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2016
New York, New York

2