147A judge of the court may accept reject or modify in whole or in part the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge148 28 USC 636b1 see also US v Raddatz 447 ID: 855286
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "2ORDERED GRANTING the motion for default..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1 2ORDERED GRANTING the motion for default
2ORDERED GRANTING the motion for default judgment (DE 308) as to Chon”) in the amount of $1,351,090.00 and for default Defendants Bergenfield Bagel & Café Inc., Maywood Bagel Inc., UB’s Pizza andBagel Inc., UB’s Bagel & Café Inc., and UBK Bagels Corp. (the “Corporate Defendants”), jointlyDENYING ADOPTED and AFFIRMED 1 it is furtherORDERED Miye ORDERED Defendants Bergenfield Bagel & Café Inc., Maywood Bagel Inc., UB’s Pizza andBagel Inc., UB’s Bagel & Café Inc., and UBK Bagels Corp., in the amount of $538,032.90 /s/ Kevin McNulty ___________________________KEVIN MCNULTYUnited States District Judge “A judge of the 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); see also U.S. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S.
2 667, 680 (1980) (stating that the distr
667, 680 (1980) (stating that the district court judge has broad discretion in accepting or rejecting the magistrate's recommendation). 1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY BANK OF HOPE Plaintiff, v. MIYE CHON, et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 1 ORDER IthatU.S. Magistrate Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation (DE Court grant the motion (DE 30HopeRule of Civilamount of $1,351,090.00 and for default judgment against Defendants Bergenfield Bagel & Café Inc., Maywood Bagel Inc., UB’s Pizza andUB’s Bagel & Café Inc., and UBK Bagels Corp. (the “Corporajointlyto defendant IT APPEARING that no objection to the R&Rotherwise, has been filed, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); LThaving de novo despite the lack of an objection; and IT APPEARINGthat Judge error of law, clear error of fact, or abuse of discretion is apIT IS