United States District Court, E.D. New York
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
K. BRODIE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Trustees of the Local 813 Pension Trust Fund commenced the
above-captioned action against Defendant Frank Miceli Jr.
Contracting, Inc. (“FMC”), Mar-Nic Equipment
& Leasing Co., Inc., Queen City Recycling and 19-17 Cliff
Street Properties LLC on January 11, 2013, asserting claims
for withdrawal liability, interest, liquidated damages and
attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 4201
et seq., as amended by the Multiemployer Pension
Plan Amendment Act of 1980, 29 U.S.C. § 1381 et
seq. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and awarded
Plaintiff damages in the amount of $79,574 for withdrawal
liability, jointly and severally against all Defendants.
(Memorandum and Order dated March 31, 2016, Docket Entry No.
47.) Plaintiff subsequently moved for an award of interest
for the period between August 28, 2012 and April 15,
2016, liquidated damages and attorneys’
fees and costs. (Pl. Mot. for Attorneys’ Fees, Docket
Entry No. 48.)
16, 2016, the Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge
James Orenstein for a report and recommendation. (Order dated
May 16, 2016.) By report and recommendation dated February
21, 2017 (the “R&R”), Judge Orenstein
recommended that the Court award Plaintiff: $9396.27 in
interest; $9396.27 in liquidated damages; $33,682.25
in reasonable attorneys’ fees; and $350 in costs.
(R&R at 1.) Combined with the previously awarded
withdrawal liability, Judge Orenstein recommended a total
award of $132,398.79. (Id.) No party has objected to
district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s
recommended ruling “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When
a party submits a timely objection to a report and
recommendation, the district court reviews de novo
the parts of the report and recommendation to which the party
objected. Id.; see also United States v.
Romano, 794 F.3d 317, 340 (2d Cir. 2015). The district
court may adopt those portions of the recommended ruling to
which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear
error is apparent from the face of the record. John
Hancock Life Ins. Co. v. Neuman, No. 15-CV-1358, 2015 WL
7459920, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2015). The clear error
standard also applies when a party makes only conclusory or
general objections, or simply reiterates its original
arguments. Chime v. Peak Sec. Plus, Inc., 137 F.
Supp. 3d 183, 187 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (“General or
conclusory objections, or objections which merely recite the
same arguments presented to the magistrate judge, are
reviewed for clear error.” (citation omitted)); see
also DePrima v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., No.
12-CV-3626, 2014 WL 1155282, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2014)
Court has reviewed the unopposed R&R and, finding no
clear error, the Court adopts Judge Orenstein’s R&R
in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk
of Court to award Plaintiff interest of $9410.44, liquidated
damages of $9410.44, reasonable attorneys’ fees of
$33,682.25 and costs of $350.
 The R&R identifies April 15, 2016
as the “date of the summary judgment motion,”
(R&R at 2–3), but the Court granted summary
judgment on March 31, 2016. (Memorandum and Order dated March
31, 2016.) The parties do not dispute that interest damages
should be awarded from August 28, 2012 through April 15,
 In the R&R, Judge Orenstein does
not rely on the interest rate provided for in the Withdrawal
Liability Procedures (Docket Entry No. 48-5) because
Plaintiff failed to establish that the procedures were in
effect during the relevant period. (R&R at 3–4.)
Judge Orenstein calculated the interest rate relying on the
regulatory annual rates of the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation (“PBGC”), (id. at 4), as
provided by 29 C.F.R. § 4219.32 and 29 U.S.C. §
1399(c), instead of the statutory default rate provided in 29
U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(E) (“For purposes of this
paragraph, interest on unpaid contributions shall be
determined by using the rate provided under the plan, or, if
none, the rate prescribed under section 6621 of title
26.”). Courts have approved both approaches in the
absence of a plan that dictates the applicable interest rate.
Compare Trs. of the United Teamster Pension Fund v.
Juniors Produce Inc., No. 15-CV-6927, 2016 WL 4995023,
at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2016) (applying the statutory
default rate provided in 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(E) where
the plan documents and collective bargaining agreement did
not set forth an interest rate to calculate withdrawal
liability), report and recommendation adopted, 2016
WL 4995154 (Sept. 16, 2016), with Bd. of Trs. of UFCW
Local 342 Pension Fund v. Merrick Associated Market,
Inc., No. 11-CV-4310, 2012 WL 4049845, at *4 (E.D.N.Y.
Aug. 21, 2012) (applying PBGC interest rate where “no
plan document specifie[d] a particular interest rate for
withdrawal liability”), report and recommendation
adopted, 2012 WL 4049996 (Sept. 13, 2012), and Bd.
of Trs. of the UFCW Local 174 Pension Fund v. Jerry WWHS Co.,
Inc., No. 8-CV-2325, 2009 WL 982424, at *5 (E.D.N.Y.
Apr. 10, 2009) (applying PBGC interest rates where the record
did not include any information about the terms of the fund,
because “the court may look only to the regulatory
interest rate in computing interest”) (adopting report
and recommendation). Here, because neither party objected to
the use of the PBGC rates, the Court declines to decide
whether Judge Orenstein applied it appropriately.
 The Court, however, corrects Judge
Orenstein’s interest award which, without rounding and
accounting for 1312 days between August 28, 2012 and March
31, 2016, totals $9410.44 ($79,574*((0.0325*(1312/365))
(0.035*(15/365)))), instead of $9396.27