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.

Cement and Concrete Workers District Council Welfare Fund v. Integrated Structures Corp. and Francis A. Lee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


September 25, 2012

CEMENT AND CONCRETE WORKERS DISTRICT COUNCIL WELFARE FUND,
PENSION FUND, ANNUITY FUND, EDUCATION AND TRAINING FUND AND OTHER FUNDS; SILVANA BALDO,
IN HER FIDUCIARY CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CEMENT AND CONCRETE WORKERS DISTRICT COUNCIL WELFARE FUND, PENSION FUND AND ANNUITY FUND; AND ALEXANDER J. CASTALDI, AS PRESIDENT OF THE
CEMENT AND CONCRETE WORKERS DISTRICT COUNCIL AND IN HIS FIDUCIARY CAPACITY AS A TRUSTEE OF THE EDUCATION AND TRAINING FUND,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
INTEGRATED STRUCTURES CORP. AND FRANCIS A. LEE, DEFENDANTS.

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On August 24, 2012, Magistrate Judge Reyes issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") recommending that judgment be entered against the defendants in the total amount of $$221,015.58, but that plaintiffs' request for permanent injunctive relief and an audit of defendants' books be denied. The R&R recited that "[a]ny objections to the recommendations made in this [R&R] must be filed . . . within fourteen (14) days of receiving this R&R," and advised that "[f]ailure to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal the District Court's Order." R&R at 14.

The R&R was served on the defendants at their last known address on August 24, 2012. 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 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); 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, however, 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).

The R&R contains no error, let alone plain error. Accordingly, the Court adopts it without de novo review. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge

20120925

© 1992-2012 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.