Soto v. Armstrong Realty Management Corp. et al

Filing 34

ORDER: Adopting 33 Report and Recommendations. Objections to Judge Francis's R&R were due by January 4, 2017. See Dkt. No. 33 at 15. As of May 16, 2017, no objections have been filed. The Court thus reviews the R&R for clear error, and finds none. The Court therefore adopts the R&R in its entirety and enters judgment against Defendants for the amounts stated in Judge Francis's R&R. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 5/17/2017) (ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Albe1i Soto,

Plaintiff,
15 Civ. 9283 (AJN)(JCF)

-vORDER
Armstrong Realty Management Corp. and Mark
Massey,

Defendants.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
Before the Comi is Judge Francis's Report & Recommendation ("R & R")
recommending that, after an entry of default judgment against the Defendants, the Plaintiff be
awarded $141,910.09 in unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
prejudgment interest. See Dkt. No. 33.
When considering the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the Court
may "accept, reject, or modify [them], in whole or in part." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). The Court
must make a de nova determination of any portions of a magistrate's report or findings to which
a party raises an objection, and reviews only for "clear error on the face of the record" when

there are no objections to the R & R. Brennan v. Colvin, No. 13-CV-6338 (AJN) (RLE), 2015
WL 1402204, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2015),· see also Hicks v. Ercole, No. 09-cv-2531 (AJN)
(MHD), 2015 WL 1266800, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2015); Gomez v. Brown, 655 F.Supp.2d
332, 341 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Clear error is found only when, upon review of the entire record, the
Court is left with "the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Laster v.
Mancini, No. 07-CV-8265 (DAB) (MHD), 2013 WL 5405468, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2013)

(quoting United States v. Snow, 462 F.3d 55, 72 (2d Cir. 2006)).
Objections to Judge Francis's R & R were due by January 4, 2017. See Dkt. No. 33 at
15. As of May 16, 2017, no objections have been filed. The Court thus reviews the R & R for
clear error, and finds none. The Court therefore adopts the R & R in its entirety and enters
judgment against Defendants for the amounts stated in Judge Francis's R & R.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May

Ji,

2017

New York, New York

ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge

2