From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fedex Techconnect, Inc. v. Surplus R US Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Dec 30, 2011
11-CV-2591(ARR)(JMA) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2011)

Opinion

11-CV-2591(ARR)(JMA)

12-30-2011

FEDEX TECHCONNECT, INC., Plaintiff, v. SURPLUS R US INC., Defendant.


NOT FOR PRINT OR ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION


ORDER

ROSS, United States District Judge:

The court has received the Report and Recommendation on the instant case dated December 9, 2011, from the Honorable Joan M. Azrack, United States Magistrate Judge. No objections have been filed. Accordingly, the court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. See Advisory Comm. Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); accord Brissett v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth., No. 09-CV-1930682 (CBA) (LB), 2011 WL 1930682, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2011). Having reviewed the record, I find no clear error. I hereby adopt the Report and Recommendation, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Therefore, plaintiff is awarded a total of $91,693.82, representing $80,019.13 in damages, $11,234.69 in interest, and $440.00 in costs. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to serve a copy of this order on defendant and promptly file proof of service via ECF.

SO ORDERED.

__________

Allyne R. Ross

United Stated District Judge
Dated: December 30, 2011

Brooklyn, New York


Summaries of

Fedex Techconnect, Inc. v. Surplus R US Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Dec 30, 2011
11-CV-2591(ARR)(JMA) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2011)
Case details for

Fedex Techconnect, Inc. v. Surplus R US Inc.

Case Details

Full title:FEDEX TECHCONNECT, INC., Plaintiff, v. SURPLUS R US INC., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Dec 30, 2011

Citations

11-CV-2591(ARR)(JMA) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2011)

Citing Cases

Medina v. Donaldson

ECF No. 85-1. Thus, the only costs for which Plaintiff provided documentation were the two witness subpoena…