The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge:
U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), issued on August 31, 2012. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS this R&R in its entirety.
Plaintiffs Dish Network L.L.C. ("Dish Network"), Echostar Technologies L.L.C. ("Echostar") and NagraStar L.L.C. ("NagraStar," and, collectively, "Plaintiffs") commenced this action on June 16, 2011 against Defendant David Friedman ("Defendant") asserting claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq., the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 605 et seq., and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq. and seeking monetary and injunctive relief. Defendant did not answer or otherwise appear in this action. Plaintiffs moved for an entry of default on September 19, 2011 (Docket Entry 4), which was entered by the Clerk of the Court on September 21, 2011 (Docket Entry 5). On September 30, 2011, Plaintiffs moved for default judgment on its Electronic Communications Privacy Act claim*fn1
(Docket Entry 6), and on October 11, 2011, the Court referred Plaintiffs' motion for an R&R (Docket Entry 7).
Judge Brown issued his R&R on August 31, 2012 recommending that Plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment be granted in part and denied in part--i.e., to the extent that Plaintiffs' motion seeks a default judgment in favor of Echostar and NagraStar, the motion be denied and, to the extent that Plaintiffs' motion seeks a default judgment in favor of Dish Network, the motion be granted. Judge Brown also recommended that Dish Network be awarded statutory damages in the amount of $10,000 and a permanent injunction.
No party has objected to any portion of Judge Brown's R&R.
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 quotation marks and citation omitted).
Here, no party objected to Judge Brown's R&R. And the Court finds his R&R to be correct, comprehensive, well-reasoned and free of any clear error. ...