From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cablevision Systems New York City Corp. v. Hall

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Dec 18, 2000
99 CIV 5050 (RCC) (KNF) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2000)

Opinion

99 CIV 5050 (RCC) (KNF)

December 18, 2000


OPINION AND ORDER


Cablevision Systems New York City Corp., plaintiff in this action, alleges that the defendants intercepted cable television programming signals in violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 553 and 605, and New York State Public Service Law § 225.6. On November 7, 1999, this Court entered a default judgment against the defendants and referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathanial Fox for an inquest on damages. Judge Fox ordered Cablevision to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as evidence in support of its request for damages. Defendants did not file any opposing papers.

On July 5, 2000, Judge Fox issued an opinion recommending that Cablevision be awarded damages in the following amounts:

• $8,352.51 against Defendant Deno Okolo • $8,352.51 against Defendant George Glasford • $10,000 against Defendant Esteban Morales • $10,000 against Defendant Frank Gueits • $8,400.84 against Defendant Lucy Morales • $10,000 against Defendant Peter Rodriguez • $8,766.78 against Defendant Harold Romero • $2,337.45 for attorneys fees and costs

A court may adopt the portions of a Report and Recommendation to which the parties do not object and with which the court finds no clear error. See Pizarro v. Bartlett, 776 F. Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) and Rules 72, 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties had ten (10) days to file written objections. In conformity with Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam), Judge Fox's Report explicitly cautioned that failure to file timely objections to the Report and Recommendation could constitute a waiver of any objections. As no objections have been filed to date, the Court need not perform a de novo review of Judge Fox's analysis. See Chen v. Jenna Lane. Inc., 30 F. Supp.2d 622 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). The Court, having reviewed the file in this matter and satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record, accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Fox in its entirety, and directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment against the defendants in accordance therewith.


Summaries of

Cablevision Systems New York City Corp. v. Hall

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Dec 18, 2000
99 CIV 5050 (RCC) (KNF) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2000)
Case details for

Cablevision Systems New York City Corp. v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:CABLEVISION SYSTEMS NEW YORK CITY CORP., Plaintiff, JANETH HALL; GEORGE…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Dec 18, 2000

Citations

99 CIV 5050 (RCC) (KNF) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2000)