MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

GEORGE B. DANIELS, District Judge.

On November 9, 2016, this Court issued an Order finding that Plaintiffs Pearson Education, Inc. ("Pearson"), Cengage Learning, Inc. ("Cengage"), and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ("Wiley"), were entitled to entry of a final default judgment against all defaulting Defendants1 in this case. (See Order, ECF No. 133.) This Court found Defendants liable for willful copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. and willful trademark infringement and counterfeiting under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114. That same day, this case was referred Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn to conduct an inquest on damages. (ECF No. 134.)

Before this Court is Magistrate Judge Netburn's Report and Recommendation ("Report," ECF. No. 150.) Finding that Plaintiffs are "barred from receiving a dual recovery of statutory damages," Magistrate Judge Netbum recommended Plaintiffs be granted a total award of $1,400,000 representing $100,000 for each incident of alleged copyright infringement. (Report at 1-2.) The Report recommended the award be apportioned as follows: $600,000 for Pearson, $700,000 for Cengage, and $100,000 for Wiley. (Id. at 2.) The Report also noted that Plaintiffs are entitled to post-judgement interest on their award. (Id. at 15.)2

In her Report, Magistrate Judge Netbum advised the parties that failure to file timely objections would constitute a waiver of those objections on appeal. (Id. at 16.) On April 21, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a limited objection to the Report but did not object to the recommendation as to the damages award.3(Pls.' Obj. to Report ("Obj."), ECF No. 153.) This Court adopts the Report's recommended damages award.

A district court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations set forth within the Report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When no objections to the Report are made, the court may adopt the Report if "there is no clear error on the face of the record." Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F.Supp.2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citation omitted).

When there are objections to the Report, this Court must make a de novo determination as to the objected-to portions of the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (2009); see also Rivera v. Barnhart, 423 F.Supp.2d 271, 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). It is sufficient that this Court "arrive at its own, independent conclusions" regarding those portions to which objections were made. Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189-90 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (internal citation omitted); see United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675-76 (1980). However, where a litigant's objections are conclusory, repetitious, or perfunctory, the standard of review is clear error. McDonaugh v. Astrue, 672 F.Supp.2d 542, 547-48 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs do not object to the Report's recommended damages award. The Report's recommendation that Plaintiffs be granted a total award of $1,400,000 is ADOPTED. The award is to be apportioned as follows: $600,000 for Pearson, $700,000 for Cengage, and $100,000 for Wiley. Plaintiffs are entitled to post-judgement interest on their award.

SO ORDERED.