Sadowski v. Tribuna Abierta, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------- X : CHRISTOPHER SADOWSKI, : : Plaintiff, : : 23-CV-337 (VSB) (RWL) - against - : : ORDER : TRIBUNA ABIERTA, INC., : : Defendant. : : --------------------------------------------------------- X VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: Before me is the Report & Recommendation (the “Report”) of Magistrate Judge Robert H. Lehrburger recommending that I award Plaintiff statutory damages of $7,200. (Doc. 37 (“Report”).) No party has filed an objection to the Report. For the following reasons, I ADOPT the Report in full.

The Report contains a detailed summary of the factual background and procedural history in the case, which I adopt in full. Plaintiff, a photojournalist, initiated this action on January 13, 2023, asserting a single count of copyright infringement for Defendant’s unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s copyrighted photograph. (See Doc. 1.) Defendant failed to respond, and on Plaintiff’s motion, (Doc. 14), on August 30, 2023, I entered a default judgment against Defendant as to liability, (Doc. 31). The same day, I issued a referral to Judge Lehrburger for a damages inquest. (Doc. 30.) Judge Lehrburger issued his Report on April 16, 2024, recommending an award of $7,200 in statutory damages; pre-judgment interest at the rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961, starting from commencement of the action; and $3,647.52 in attorneys’ fees and costs. (Report 18.) Plaintiff submitted proof of service of the Report on Defendant on April 19, 2024. (Doc.

38.) No party has objected to the report.

A district 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). “To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Ne/son v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N-Y. 1985) (citations omitted).

Although the Report explicitly provided that “[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72, 6(a), and 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days to file written objections to this Report & Recommendation,” and warned that “Tflailure to file timely objections will result in a waiver of the right to object and will preclude appellate review,” (Report 18), no party filed an objection or requested additional time to do so.

I have reviewed Judge Lehrburger’s thoughtful and well-reasoned Report for clear error and, after careful review, find none. I therefore ADOPT the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

For the foregoing reasons, | ADOPT the Report in its entirety.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and to close the case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2025 .

New York, New York if □ fo) Nernese on adel Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge