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.

Trustees of the Amalgamated Industrial and Toy & Novelty Workers of v. Surprise Plastics

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


September 27, 2011

TRUSTEES OF THE AMALGAMATED INDUSTRIAL AND TOY & NOVELTY WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 223 - SICK BENEFIT FUND, PENSION FUND AND LOCAL 223 HARRY O. DAMINO SCHOLARSHIP
FUND, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SURPRISE PLASTICS, INC., DEFENDANT.

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On September 2, 2011, Magistrate Judge Pohorelsky issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court award default judgment against defendant in the total amount of $73,530.37, consisting of $51,941.26 in unpaid contributions, $8,206.56 in interest through August 31, 2011 plus $17.31 per day thereafter to the date of judgment, $10,388.25 in liquidated damages and $2,475 in attorney's fees and costs. See R&R at 9. The R&R also stated that defendants' failure to object within fourteen days of receiving the R&R would preclude appellate review. See id. According to the docket, plaintiff's attorney mailed a copy of the R&R to defendant on September 7, 2011.

To date, no objections have been filed.

If clear notice has been given of the consequences of failure to object, and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate's decision."). The Court will excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error, see Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000); no such error appears here. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R without de novo review and directs the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the R&R.

SO ORDERED.

FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge

20110927

© 1992-2011 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.