UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK eer wee we wee ewe ee ew ew ew ew ee we ee ew ee wee ee x RAMON A. BELLIARD, individually and on behalf ° of others similarly situated, : Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION -against- : AND ORDER VADIM TARNOVSKY, and OLYA 20 Civ. 1055 (GBD) (KHP) PLOTNIKOVA, : Defendants. eee ee ee ee ew ee ee ee ee eh ee ee ee ee ee xX GEORGE B. DANIELS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Ramon A. Belliard brought this action against Defendants Vadim Tarnovsky and Olya Plotnikova seeking unpaid wages under the New York Labor Law §§ 190 ef seq. and 650 et seq. and the Fair Labor Standards Act,

(d) et seg. On October 17, 2022, this Court awarded Plaintiff a default judgment against both Defendants, (ECF No. 32), and referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker for an inquest on damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest, (ECF No. 33). Before this Court is Magistrate Judge Parker’s March 6, 2023 Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), recommending that this Court award Plaintiff $8,305.84 for unpaid overtime compensation and pre-judgment interest at the rate of 9%, $8,305.84 in liquidated damages, $5,480 in attorneys’ fees, $400 in costs, and post-judgment interest. (Report, ECF No. 42, at 17.) Magistrate Judge Parker also recommended that this Court deny Plaintiff's request for statutory damages for Plaintiffs failure to properly plead standing with respect to his claims under New York’s Wage Theft Prevention Act and New York Labor Law § 195. (/d. at 10-12.) Magistrate Judge Parker advised the parties that failure to file timely objections to the Report would constitute a waiver of those objections on appeal. (/d. at 18.) No objections were filed.

]

A court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations” set forth in a magistrate judge’s report.

(b)(1)(C). Those portions of a magistrate judge’s report to which no objections are made are reviewed for clear error. See Edwards v. Fischer,

(S.D.N.Y. 2006) (citations omitted). “In clear error review, a court should reverse a finding only if it is ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,’ and not merely if it ‘would have decided the case differently.” Hernandez v. City of New York, No. 11 Civ. 6644 (KPF) (DF),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2015) (quoting Easley v. Cromartie,

, 242 (2001)). Magistrate Judge Parker conducted a comprehensive and careful inquest. This Court finds no error, clear or otherwise, in the Report’s analysis. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Parker’s recommended judgment regarding damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs is ADOPTED in full for the reasons stated in the Report. Final judgment shall be entered ordering Defendants to pay Plaintiff: (1) $8,305.84 for unpaid overtime compensation and pre-judgment interest at the rate of 9% on this amount; (2) $8,305.84 in liquidated damages; (3) $5,480 in attorneys’ fees; (4) $400 in costs; and (5) post-judgment interest, to be calculated from the date the Clerk of Court enters judgment in this action until the date of payment, using the federal rate set forth in

. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this action.

Dated: May 8, 2023 New York, New York SO ORDERED. + fis b Datel G GE BJDANIELS United States District Judge