Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bank of Hope v. Chon, 14-1770 (KM). (2020)

Court: District Court, D. New Jersey Number: infdco20200316877 Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 12, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2020
Summary: ORDER KEVIN McNULTY , District Judge . IT APPEARING that, on February 18, 2020, the Hon. Joseph A. Dickson, U.S. Magistrate Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation (DE 386) that the Court grant the unopposed motion (DE 307) of Suk Joon Ryu for a default judgment against defendant Miye Chon on a crossclaim for defamation, with damages to be determined; and IT APPEARING that no objection to the R&R, timely or otherwise, has been filed, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L. Civ. R. 72.1c(2); and
More

ORDER

IT APPEARING that, on February 18, 2020, the Hon. Joseph A. Dickson, U.S. Magistrate Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation (DE 386) that the Court grant the unopposed motion (DE 307) of Suk Joon Ryu for a default judgment against defendant Miye Chon on a crossclaim for defamation, with damages to be determined; and

IT APPEARING that no objection to the R&R, timely or otherwise, has been filed, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L. Civ. R. 72.1c(2); and

THE COURT having reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo despite the lack of an objection; and

IT APPEARING that Judge Dickson's reasoning is sound, and that no error of law, clear error of fact, or abuse of discretion is apparent;

IT IS THEREFORE this 12th day of March, 2020,

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (DE 386) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3);1 and it is further

ORDERED, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, that

(a) The motion (DE 307) for default judgment is GRANTED; (b) Determination of the amount of damages shall be deferred, at the suggestion of counsel for Mr. Ryu, and be determined in conjunction with, or following, the resolution of a related case, Ryu v. Bank of Hope, Civ. No. 19-18998 (KM/JBC).

FootNotes


1. "A judge of the 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); see also U.S. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 680 (1980) (stating that the district court judge has broad discretion in accepting or rejecting the magistrate's recommendation).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer