UMS Solutions v. Cornell

Filing 24

ORDER for 22 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, I adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Petitioner's Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED and Petitioner's application for attorneys' fees and costs is GRANTED. Thus, (1) judgment is entered in favor of UMS in the amount of $325,115.14; (2) UMS is awarded interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the sum of $259,301.17 from September 1, 2016 until full payment is made, pursuant to Arb itrator Bianchi's instructions; (3) UMS is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $10,077.50 and (4) UMS is awarded costs in the amount of $400. The Clerk's Office is respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of Petitioner and close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 4/11/2019) (kv) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------- X
:
UMS SOLUTIONS,
:
:
Petitioner, :
:
- against :
:
BRAD CORNELL,
:
:
Respondent. :
:
--------------------------------------------------------- X

4/11/2019

17-CV-3119 (VSB) (HBP)
ORDER

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
Petitioner UMS Solutions, doing business as Universal Imaging (“UMS”), commenced
this action on April 28, 2017 pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 9, to confirm
and enforce an arbitration award against Respondent Brad Cornell. (Doc. 1.) Before me is
Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman’s unchallenged Report and Recommendation, issued on
November 6, 2018 (the “Report and Recommendation”), which recommends that I confirm the
arbitration award and grant Petitioner’s application for attorneys’ fees and costs. (See Doc. 22 at
15.) Because neither party has objected to the Report and Recommendation, and because I find
that Magistrate Judge Pitman’s Report and Recommendation is thorough and detailed, I accept
its findings and recommendations and adopt the Report in its entirety.
Factual and Procedural Background
The facts set forth in the Report and Recommendation are incorporated herein by
reference unless otherwise noted. I assume familiarity with the facts and recite here only those
facts necessary for an understanding of the issues before me.
Petitioner filed its petition to confirm the arbitration award on April 28, 2017. (Doc. 1.)
On February 26, 2018, I referred this case to Magistrate Judge Pitman for a report and

recommendation on the petition. (Doc. 15.) Magistrate Judge Pitman issued his Report and
Recommendation on November 6, 2018, and gave the parties fourteen days from receipt of the
Report to file written objections. (Doc. 22.) Respondent has not opposed the petition or
otherwise appeared in the instant action, and did not file any objections to the Report and
Recommendation.
Analysis
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s 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). Parties may raise specific, written objections to the
report and recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the report. Id.;
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). When a party submits a timely objection, a district court
reviews de novo the parts of the report and recommendation to which the party objected. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When neither party submits an objection
to a report and recommendation, or any portion thereof, a district court reviews the report and
recommendation for clear error. Lewis v. Zon, 573 F. Supp. 2d 804, 811 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); Wilds
v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.
Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
Here, the Report and Recommendation was filed on November 6, 2018. (See Doc. 22.)
Although the Report and Recommendation explicitly provided that “the parties shall have
fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report to file written objections,” (Doc. 22 at 15), neither
party filed any objections. Accordingly, I have reviewed Magistrate Judge Pitman’s thorough
and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation for clear error and found none. See Braunstein
v. Barber, No. 06 Civ. 5978(CS)(GAY), 2009 WL 1542707, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2009)

2

(explaining that a “district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to
which no objections have been made, as long as no clear error is apparent from the face of the
record”).
Conclusion
Accordingly, I adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Petitioner’s Petition
to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED and Petitioner’s application for attorneys’ fees and
costs is GRANTED. Thus, (1) judgment is entered in favor of UMS in the amount of
$325,115.14; (2) UMS is awarded interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the sum of
$259,301.17 from September 1, 2016 until full payment is made, pursuant to Arbitrator
Bianchi’s instructions; (3) UMS is awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $10,077.50 and (4)
UMS is awarded costs in the amount of $400.
The Clerk’s Office is respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of Petitioner and
close the case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 11, 2019
New York, New York
______________________
Vernon S. Broderick
United States District Judge

3