Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund v. J&J Advanced Thermal Solutions, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Virginia

Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund v. J&J Advanced Thermal Solutions, Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SHEET METAL ) WORKERS’ NATIONAL PENSION ) FUND, ) Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00557 (RDA/WEF) J&J ADVANCED THERMAL SOLUTIONS, INC., ) Defendant. ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) issued by Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick on August 1, 2022. Dkt. 14. In this employee pension benefits case, Judge Davis recommends that the Court (1) grant Plaintiff Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant J&J Advanced Thermal Solutions, Inc. (“Defendant”); (2) enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $7,816.81, consisting of Defendant’s unpaid Exit Contribution, accrued interest, and liquidated damages; and (3) enter judgment against Defendant for $4,496.98, consisting of Plaintiff's attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in pursuing this matter. See Dkt. 14 at 11. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), the deadline for submitting objections to Judge Fitzpatrick’s Recommendation was August 15, 2022. To date, no objections have been filed.

After reviewing the record and Judge Fitzpatrick’s Recommendation, and finding no clear error,! the Court hereby APPROVES and ADOPTS the Recommendation. Dkt. 14. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion (Dkt. 8) is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, forward copies of this Order to counsel of record, and close this civil action. It is SO ORDERED. Alexandria, Virginia August (7, 2022

Rossie D. Alston, Jr. United States District J udge

' See Diamond vy. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,

416 F.3d 310, 315

(4th Cir. 2005) (holding that in the absence of any objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the Court “need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation’”).

Reference

Status
Unknown