ORDER

SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") of Magistrate Judge William D. Wall, dated April 15, 2013, recommending that plaintiffs' motion for judgment against defendant Susan Friedlander ("Friedlander") for violation of a stipulation and order of settlement be granted and that plaintiffs be awarded the total amount of sixty-five thousand four hundred forty-eight dollars and fifty-six cents ($65,448.56)1, plus eighteen dollars and thirty-two cents ($18.32) in combined per diem interest and liquidated damages commencing August 22, 2012 to the entry of judgment. No objections have been filed to the Report. For the reasons stated herein, the Court accepts Magistrate Judge Wall's Report in its entirety.

I

Any portion of a report and recommendation on dispositive matters, to which a timely objection has been made, is reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The court, however, is not required to review the factual findings or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to which no proper objections are interposed. See, Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter, to which no timely objection has been made, the district judge need only be satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Johnson v. Goord, 487 F.Supp.2d 377, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), aff'd, 305 Fed. Appx. 815 (2d Cir. Jan. 1, 2009); Baptichon v. Nevada State Bank, 304 F.Supp.2d 451, 453 (E.D.N.Y. 2004), aff'd, 125 Fed.Appx. 374 (2d Cir. 2005). Whether or not proper objections have been filed, the district judge may, after review, accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

II

No party has filed any objections to Magistrate Judge Wall's Report. Upon review, the Court is satisfied that the Report is not facially erroneous. Accordingly, the Court accepts Magistrate Judge Wall's Report in its entirety. Plaintiffs' motion for judgment against defendant Susan Friedlander ("Friedlander") for violation of a stipulation and order of settlement is granted and plaintiffs are awarded the total amount of sixty-five thousand four hundred forty-eight dollars and fifty-six cents ($65,448.56), plus eighteen dollars and thirty-two cents ($18.32) in combined per diem interest and liquidated damages commencing August 22, 2012 to the entry of judgment. The Clerk of the Court shall reopen this case for the purpose of entering judgment in favor of plaintiffs, enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and close this case.

SO ORDERED.