MARGO K. BRODIE, District Judge.
Plaintiff Trustees of the Local 813 Pension Trust Fund commenced the above-captioned action against Defendant Frank Miceli Jr. Contracting, Inc. ("FMC"), Mar-Nic Equipment & Leasing Co., Inc., Queen City Recycling and 19-17 Cliff Street Properties LLC on January 11, 2013, asserting claims for withdrawal liability, interest, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq., as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendment Act of 1980, 29 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and awarded Plaintiff damages in the amount of $79,574 for withdrawal liability, jointly and severally against all Defendants. (Memorandum and Order dated March 31, 2016, Docket Entry No. 47.) Plaintiff subsequently moved for an award of interest for the period between August 28, 2012 and April 15, 2016,
On May 16, 2016, the Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein for a report and recommendation. (Order dated May 16, 2016.) By report and recommendation dated February 21, 2017 (the "R&R"), Judge Orenstein recommended that the Court award Plaintiff: $9396.27 in interest;
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's recommended ruling "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). When a party submits a timely objection to a report and recommendation, the district court reviews de novo the parts of the report and recommendation to which the party objected. Id.; see also United States v. Romano, 794 F.3d 317, 340 (2d Cir. 2015). The district court may adopt those portions of the recommended ruling to which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. v. Neuman, No. 15-CV-1358, 2015 WL 7459920, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2015). The clear error standard also applies when a party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates its original arguments. Chime v. Peak Sec. Plus, Inc., 137 F.Supp.3d 183, 187 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) ("General or conclusory objections, or objections which merely recite the same arguments presented to the magistrate judge, are reviewed for clear error." (citation omitted)); see also DePrima v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 12-CV-3626, 2014 WL 1155282, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2014) (collecting cases).
The Court has reviewed the unopposed R&R and, finding no clear error, the Court adopts Judge Orenstein's R&R in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
SO ORDERED.