AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

ALEXANDER LOPEZ and LUCAS LOPEZ, on behalf of themsel v. s and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

BLOCK, Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Appearances:
For the Plaintiff:

JOSEPH A. FITAPELLI, ESQ.
BRIAN S. SCHAFFER, ESQ.
FRANK J. MAZZAFERRO, ESQ.
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP
475 Park Avenue, South, 12th Floor
New York, New York 10016
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:






On March 9, 2015, Magistrate Judge Orenstein issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court enter a default judgment against defendants in the total amount of $124,190.84. The R&R stated that "[a]ny objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed no later than March 26, 2015," and that "[f]ailure to file objections within this period designating the particular issues to be reviewed waives the right to appeal the district court's order." R&R at 24. Copies of the R&R were mailed to the defendants' last known address on March 10, 2015. To date, no objections have been filed.

Where, as here, 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, however, 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 error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face of the R&R. Therefore, the Court adopts it without de novo review. Accordingly, the clerk shall enter judgment against defendants in the total amount of $124,190.84, plus postjudgment interest.

SO ORDERED.

/S/ Frederic Block


FREDERIC BLOCK


Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
March 30, 2015




Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Lopez v. Yossi's Heimishe Bakery Inc.
(Mar 30, 2015)