Zavala et al v. Top Shelf Electric Corp. et al

Filing 161

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 157 Report and Recommendations,,, 138 Motion for Default Judgment, filed by Sahagun Merejildo, Luis Torres, Jose Briceno, Juan Carlos Diaz, Jorge Guerrero, Luciano Emigdio, Jaime Granada, John Jaime Rivera Alayon, Andres Torres, Segundo Morales Martinez, Gustavo Rangel, Ernesto Alejandro Sanchez, Alexander Gonzalez, Eduardo Cruz Gonzalez, Nicolas Velasquez, Jaume Villagrasa, Arodis Herrera, Alirio Zavala. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiffs have previously indicated they would voluntarily dismiss the claims as to the two remaining entity defendants, PEI Electrical Service Group Inc. and CPI Electrical Services Inc., by October 2023. See ECF No. 134. Plaintiffs shall do so by May 16, 2024. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 138. (Signed by Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke on 5/10/2024) (ate)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ALIRIO ZAVALA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-againstTOP SHELF ELECTRIC CORP, et al.,

20-CV-9437 (JGLC)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendants.

JESSICA G. L. CLARKE, United States District Judge:
This motion for default judgment was referred to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein for a
Report and Recommendation. See ECF No. 142. In the Report and Recommendation filed on
April 10, 2024, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein recommended that the motion be granted. See ECF
No. 157.
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.

See ECF No. 157. In addition, the Report and Recommendation expressly called the parties’
attention to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See id.
On April 17, 2024, Plaintiffs requested an extension of time to file objections, until May 8, 2024,
which the Court granted. See ECF Nos. 158, 159. Nevertheless, as of the date of this Order, no
objections have been filed and no further 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).
Despite the waiver, the Court has reviewed the petition and 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.
Plaintiffs have previously indicated they would voluntarily dismiss the claims as to the
two remaining entity defendants, PEI Electrical Service Group Inc. and CPI Electrical Services
Inc., by October 2023. See ECF No. 134. Plaintiffs shall do so by May 16, 2024.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 138.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 10, 2024
New York, New York

JESSICA G. L. CLARKE
United States District Judge