In the Matter of the Complaint of Denis Krezic, as Owner of a 2004 23’ Cheetah...

TATES DISTRIC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SS FILED LS WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK S JUN 2 4 2026 AN, NK In the Matter of the Complaint, LR W. SESS ERN DISTRIC\ of DENIS KREZIC, as Owner of a 2004 24-CV-1109 (JLS) (MJR) 23’ Cheetah Scorpion (HIN: CHTO8L60L304) for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability DECISION AND ORDER Petitioner Denis Krezic, as Owner of a 2004 23’ Cheetah Scorpion (HIN: CHTO8L60L304), filed a complaint for exoneration from or limitation of liability pursuant to Title 46, United States Code §§ 30501 ef seq. and Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for all claims arising out of a boating incident on July 4, 2024.

Dkt. 1. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J.

Roemer for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 6.

On January 17, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Court (1) approve the Ad Interim Stipulation for Value; (2) enter an order directing the Clerk of Court to issue notice to all claimants; and (8) enjoin all suits and direct the filing of claims in this proceeding. Dkt. 9. On January 22, 2025, Judge Roemer issued an order approving the Ad Interim Stipulation of Value, directing issuance of notice, and enjoining all other actions. Dkt. 10. The Clerk of Court then issued an Amended Notice of Complaint on March 18, 2025 requiring that all persons having claims arising out of the July 4, 2024 incident file a claim with the Clerk of Court, and serve a copy of such claim on Petitioner’s counsel, on or before April 28, 2025. Dkt. 14. On June 17, 2025, Petitioner requested an entry of default against Shana-Lee Rambadt— an anticipated claimant—and all other non-appearing claimants pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 55(a) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the Western District of New York. Dkt. 16. The Clerk of Court made entry of default against Ms. Rambadt on September 22, 2025. Dkt. 17.

On October 21, 2025, Petitioner moved for default judgment against Ms. Rambadt and all other non-appearing claimants. Dkt. 18. Judge Roemer issued a scheduling notice which required responses to be filed by November 19, 2025, and no response was filed. On April 9, 2026, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this Court (1) grant Petitioner’s [18] motion for default and (2) sign the proposed Default Judgment Against All Non- Appearing Claimants (Dkt.18-8) filed along with Petitioner’s motion. See Dkt. 19.

Ms. Rambadt objected to the R&R. Dkt. 20. The Court considers Ms. Rambadt’s objections as an attempt to either vacate the entry of judgment against her or assert a late claim. Jd.! Defendants opposed the objections, Dkt. 22, and Plaintiff did not reply.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. Rambadt does not expressly seek to vacate the Clerk’s entry of judgment against her. As a result, the Court will consider her objection as an attempt to either vacate the entry of judgment or file a late claim.

P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R and the relevant record. Based on its de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Roemer’s recommendation.

For the reasons above and in the R&R, Petitioner’s [18] motion for default judgment is GRANTED and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case upon entry of the judgment.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2026 Buffalo, New York if d. fj thas, J JOHNL.SINATRA,JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE