Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Duffy v. Master Waterproofers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


September 17, 2010

WILLIAM DUFFY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MASTER WATERPROOFERS, INC., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Pending before the Court is Magistrate William D. Wall's Report & Recommendation ("R&R"), issued August 27, 2010. For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS this R&R in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

On September 21, 2009, Plaintiffs commenced this suit against Master Waterproofers, Inc., WPB Pavement Coatings, George Pfaff, Inc., and William P. Bechtold, Jr. None of the Defendants have appeared in this litigation, or responded to the Complaint. On November 25, 2009, Plaintiffs moved for a default judgment. The Court referred Plaintiffs' motion to Judge Wall for his R&R.

On August 18, 2010, Plaintiffs wrote Judge Wall to inform him that one of the Defendants, Master Waterproofers, Inc., had filed for bankruptcy, thereby staying the proceedings against it. But Plaintiffs requested that Judge Wall continue to consider the pending default judgment motion against the other Defendants.

On August 27, Judge Wall issued his R&R. Judge Wall recommended that Plaintiffs' default judgment motion be denied as to the non-bankrupt Defendants, WPB Pavement Coatings, George Pfaff, Inc. and William P. Bechtold, Jr., because Plaintiffs had failed to provide "legal support for entry of such judgment." R&R at 1. Specifically, Judge Wall reported that, "without legal argument from the plaintiffs," he could not determine "whether [Plaintiffs] can proceed against the non-bankrupt defendants, and what the legal basis for liability would be if we can proceed." R&R at 2. No party filed any objections to this R&R.

DISCUSSION

In reviewing an R&R, a district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If no timely objections have been made, the "court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606. 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (internal quotations omitted).

Here, no party objected to Judge Wall's R&R. And the Court finds his R&R to be correct, comprehensive, well-reasoned, and free of any clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS it in its entirety.

CONCLUSION

Judge Wall's R&R is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment (Docket No. 6) is DENIED as against WPB Pavement Coatings, George Pfaff, Inc., and William P. Bechtold, Jr. Plaintiffs' motion, like the rest of this case, is STAYED against Master Waterproofers, Inc., because of Master Waterproofers' bankruptcy filing.

Central Islip, New York.

SO ORDERED.

Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.

20100917

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.