UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
April 10, 2007
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
HOWARD SALTEN, MARGARET SALTEN, AND IF NOT LIVING THEIR HEIRS-AT-LAW, IF ANY, PATRICIA SALTEN, ALSO KNOWN AS PATRICIA LYNCH, JOHN DOES #1-10, INCLUSIVE, SUCH NAMES BEING FICTITIOUS AND UNKNOWN TO PLAINTIFF, THE PERSONS OR PARTIES INTENDED BEING TENANTS, OCCUPANTS, PERSONS, CORPORATIONS, OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITIES, IF ANY, HAVING OR CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN OR LIEN UPON THE PREMISES DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay, dated January 29, 2007. The Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court award Plaintiff $52,863.56, consisting of the principal amount of $16,783.46, advances for taxes and other charges in the amount of $15,234.15, plus interest at a rate of 8 1/8% calculated through February 1, 2005, and interest at a daily rate of $7.83 from February 1, 2005 to the date of judgment.
On January 30, 2007, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant with the Report and Recommendation via certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff mailed the Report and Recommendation to the last post office box address Defendant provided to the Court. The Report and Recommendation was returned as undeliverable, and the Clerk of the Court docketed the certificate on February 26, 2007.
Defendant has had a long history of refusing to provide the proper address to the Court and not appearing in Court for scheduled hearings and conferences before the Court. See United States v. Salten, 02-CV-3062 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2003) (magistrate noting that Defendant refused to disclose address); United States v. Salten, 03-CV-578 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2004) (clerk of the court certifying Defendants' default). The Court has directed Defendant to provide a post office box address where he can receive service of documents from the Court and Plaintiff. See United States v. Salten, 03-CV-578 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2003) (ordering Defendant to provide address for service). It is not this Court's job to maintain current addresses of all litigants; rather, the parties must provide such changes of address as well as make timely status inquiries. See Sherrill v. Walsh, 96-CV-0016, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12694, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. June 14, 1996) (noting the parties' duties to inform the courts of address changes).
None of the parties have objected to the Report and Recommendation. As no party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, all objections are hereby deemed to have been waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED R. CIV. P. 72; Beverly v. Walker, 118 F.3d 900, 902 (2d Cir. 1997); Savoie v. Merchants Bank, 84 F.3d 52, 60 (2d Cir. 1996).
After carefully reviewing the submissions of the parties, Judge Lindsay's findings, and applying the appropriate legal standards, this Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court finds that no clear error appears on the face of the record; accordingly, the Court may accept the recommendation despite the attempted service of the Report and Recommendation upon Defendant. See Santana v. Giambruno, 97-CV-850, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23435, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. May 28, 1998) (adopting report and recommendation despite service of report returned as undeliverable).
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J. Dated: Central Islip, New York
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.