Opinion
Civil Action 22-7456 (MAS) (TJB)
11-21-2024
QUALITY LINE EXPRESS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. LITTLE CHUBBY ONE, INC., et al., Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MICHAEL A. SHIPP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Tonianne J. Bongiovanni, U.S.M.L, recommending the dismissal of Defendant Little Chubby One, Inc.'s (“LCO”) Counterclaims (ECF No. 17), with prejudice, due to LCO's default based on its failure to obtain counsel (“R&R”, ECF No. 32). The Clerk of the Court sent a copy of the R&R via both Regular and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the address listed on the docket for LCO. (See ECF No. 32-2.) No objections to the R&R were filed within the fourteen days provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule 72.1(c)(2). To date, more than seven months later, LCO has still not filed an objection to the R&R.
The Court recognizes that the R&R also addressed Defendant Isak B. Stern's (“Stern”) failure to comply with Court Orders and failure to defend. (See generally R&R.) The parties, however, have stipulated to Stem's dismissal from this suit with prejudice (ECF Nos. 52, 53), and as such the Court does not address anything in the R&R as it relates to Stem.
“[W]here no objections are made in regard to a report or parts thereof, the district court will adopt the report and accept the recommendation if it is ‘satisfied] . . . that there is no clear error on the face of the record.'” Sportscare of Am., PC. v. Multiplan, Inc., No. 10-4414, 2011 WL 500195, at *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 10, 2011) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 Advisory Committee's Notes); see also Defalco v. Rutgers Univ. Police Dept, No. 15-6607, 2019 WL 2591031, at *4 (D.N.J. June 25, 2019) (applying a clear error standard of review to uncontested portions of Magistrate Judge's R&R).
Judge Bongiovanni's well-reasoned R&R weighed the factors set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Casualty Co. and correctly determined that dismissal was appropriate. See 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984). After a careful review of the record and the R&R, the Court agrees that the first through fifth Poulis factors all weigh in favor of dismissal, and the sixth Poulis factor should be deemed neutral. As such, the Court finds that there is no clear error on the face of the record, and Judge Bongiovanni's “reasoning is sound.” See Bank of Hope v. Chon, No. 14-1770, 2020 WL 1188463, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 12, 2020) (adopting the R&R where the magistrate judge's reasoning was sound).
The Court has reviewed and carefully considered the R&R and underlying documents in this matter and finds good cause to adopt Judge Bongiovanni's findings. Accordingly, IT IS on this 21st day of November 2024, ORDERED that:
1. The R&R (ECF No. 32) is hereby ADOPTED in full as the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of this Court.
2. LCO's Counterclaims (ECF No. 17) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.