Opinion
16-CV-0051 (JFB) (ARL)
04-25-2018
GUILLERMO PIMENTEL, Plaintiff, v. MEMORIES PUB INC. and ALBERTO OLIVEIRA, Defendants.
ORDER :
On August 24, 2017, this Court entered default judgment against defendants Memories Pub Inc. and Alberto Oliveira (together, "defendants") and referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay for a Report and Recommendation to address the issue of damages and other relief sought by plaintiff. (ECF No. 24.) On February 20, 2018, Judge Lindsay issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that plaintiff be awarded $42,382.13 in unpaid minimum, overtime, and spread-of-hours wages; $42,382.13 in liquidated damages; $10.45 per day in prejudgment interest from August 19, 2013 until the date of judgment; and $9,187.50 in attorney's fees and costs. (ECF No. 25.)
A copy of the R&R was served on defendants on April 5, 2018. (See ECF No. 26.) Judge Lindsay directed that any objections to the R&R be filed within fourteen (14) days of service of the R&R. (R&R at 9.) The deadline has since passed, and no party has filed objections.
Where there are no objections, the Court may adopt a report and recommendation without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."); see also 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."); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (requiring de novo review after objections). However, because the failure to file timely objections is not jurisdictional, a district judge may still excuse the failure to object in a timely manner and exercise its discretion to decide the case on the merits to, for example, prevent plain error. See Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003) ("[B]ecause the waiver rule is non jurisdictional, we 'may excuse the default in the interests of justice.'" (quoting Thomas, 474 U.S. at 155)).
Although no party has objected to the R&R, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R in an abundance of caution. Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, and having reviewed the R&R de novo, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the well-reasoned and thorough R&R in their entirety.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is awarded $42,382.13 in unpaid minimum, overtime, and spread-of-hours wages; $42,382.13 in liquidated damages; $10.45 per day in prejudgment interest from August 19, 2013 until the date of judgment; and $9,187.50 in attorney's fees and costs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on defendants and file proof of service with the Court.
SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
JOSEPH F. BIANCO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: April 25, 2018
Central Islip, New York