United States District Court, S.D. New York
June 10, 2005.
REUTERS AMERICA LLC, Plaintiff,
OUTDOOR TELEVISION NETWORK, INC., Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: RICHARD BERMAN, District Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 17, 2004, Reuters America LLC ("Plaintiff") filed a
complaint against Outdoor Television Network, Inc. ("Defendant")
to recover the sum of $401,900.00 plus interest for services
allegedly rendered pursuant to a written contract between
Plaintiff and Defendant, dated July 2, 2003 ("Contract").
Plaintiff alleged that two invoices, dated November 17, 2003 and
December 22, 2003, respectively, were not paid by the Defendant
despite repeated requests. (Complaint at 4.)
On March 7, 2005, Plaintiff moved for default judgment. When
Defendants failed to respond to the default application or to
appear at a hearing on April 20, 2005, the Court entered default
judgment for Plaintiff on April 21, 2005 and referred the matter
to Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck for an inquest on damages.
On April 28, 2005, the Magistrate Peck, issued a detailed
Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that Plaintiff
be awarded damages in the amount of $401,900.00, plus
(prejudgment) interest pursuant to the Contract at the rate of
two percent ($8,038) per month from December 22, 2003 to the date
of judgment. (Report at 2.) The Report advised that "the parties shall have ten (10) days
from service of this Report to file written objections" and that
failure to file objections would result in a waiver of objections
for purposes of appeal. (Report at 2 (citing
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).)
As of this date, the parties have not filed objections to the
II. Standard of Review
In reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation,
the Court may adopt those sections of the report to which no
objections have been made and which are not facially erroneous.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985); Pizarro v. Bartlett, 776 F. Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y.
1991); Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)
("To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to
which no timely objection has been made, a district court need
only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of
the record."). "Within 10 days after the magistrate files his
proposed findings and recommendations, any party may file
objections. The statute then provides: `A judge of the court
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.'" United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667,
673 (1980). "The judge may then accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the magistrate judge's proposed findings and
recommendations." DeLuca v. Lord, 858 F. Supp. 1330, 1345
(S.D.N.Y 1994); accord Grassia v. Scully, 892 F.2d 16, 19 (2d
Having conducted a review of the Report and applicable legal
authorities, the Court finds that the Report is not clearly
erroneous and is in, in fact, conformity with the law in all
respects. See Pizarro, 776 F. Supp. at 817; Schwartz-Liebman Textiles
v. Last Exit Corp., 815 F. Supp. 106, 107 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).
For the reasons stated herein and therein, the Court adopts the
Report in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully
requested to enter judgment against the Defendant in the amount
of $401,900.00 plus interest at the rate of two percent ($8,038)
per month from December 22, 2003 to the date of entry of judgment
and to close the case.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.