Opinion
05 Civ. 0312 (SCR) (GAY).
September 28, 2006
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CSC Holdings, Inc. ("Plaintiff") brought this action under 47 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1) and § 605(a), alleging that Phillip Randazzo ("Defendant") purchased two "pirate" converter-decoder devices and intercepted the premium and pay-per-view programming of Plaintiff's subsidiary, Cablevision, without authorization. On October 17, 2005, this Court entered a default judgment against Defendant and referred the case to Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis for a report and recommendation on the amount of damages and reasonable attorneys' fees Plaintiff is entitled to recover.
On December 12, 2005, Judge Yanthis issued his Report Recommendation. He recommended that Plaintiff recover $2,000.00 in damages and $2,329.80 in attorneys' fees and costs. No objections to the Report Recommendation have been received by my chambers or filed with the court.
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a court "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). "To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citations omitted). See also Pizarro v. Bartlett, 776 F. Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (court may accept report if it is "not facially erroneous"). However, a district court judge is required to make a de novo determination as to the aspects of the report and recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-674 (1980); United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). As mentioned above, Defendant has not objected to Judge Yanthis's recommendation.
Having reviewed the thorough and well-reasoned Report and having found no clear error, I accept and adopt the Report. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages in the amount of $2,000.00 based upon Defendant's purchase of two illegal devices, which is the minimum statutory amount for each violation and is reasonable under the circumstances of this case. See 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II) ("[T]he party aggrieved may recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of subsection (a) of this section involved in the action in a sum of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000, as the court considers just. . . ."). Further, Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $2,329.80 is reasonable and supported by detailed contemporaneous time records and an affidavit. See 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii).
Plaintiff is awarded damages in the amount of $2,000.00, attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,101.00, and costs in the amount of 228.80. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
It is so ordered.