Delphi CRE Funding LLC v. Christopher Beavor

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DELPHI CRE FUNDING LLC, Plaintiff, 25 Civ. 3906 (RMB) (HJR) -against- DECISION AND ORDER CHRISTOPHER BEAVOR, Defendant. I. Background Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo has written an excellent report and recommendation, dated December 22, 2025, in response to the Court’s referral on July 16, 2025 (“Report”). Judge Ricardo’s thorough analysis recommends that: (i) Defendant Christopher Beavor’s cross motion to dismiss, filed June 20, 2025, be denied; (ii) Plaintiff Delphi CRE Funding LLC’s motion for summary judgment, filed May 9, 2025, be granted with respect to liability; (iii) Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment, filed May 9, 2025, be denied as to the quantum of damages. Report at 1. For the reasons that follow, the Report is adopted in its entirety and the amount of damages is referred to Judge Ricardo for a (limited) further report and recommendation. At the outset, it must be noted that, although Judge Ricardo advised the parties that “failure to file objections within fourteen (14) days will result in a waiver of objections and will preclude appellate review” (Report at 33), neither

Beavor nor Delphi has filed objections to the Report. See Cobalt Multifamily Invs. I, LLC v. Arden, 857 F. Supp. 2d 349, 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“[F]ailure to timely object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of appellate review of the district court’s ultimate order.”); see also Small v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985)). II. Legal Standard As noted, when a party fails properly to object to a report and recommendation, the district court reviews only for clear error. See Nambiar v. Cent. Orthopedic Grp., LLP, 158 F.4th 349, 359 (2d Cir. 2025) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); see also Ortiz v. Consol. Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 801 F. Supp. 3d 260, 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (“To accept uncontested portions of a report and recommendation, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record. A decision is ‘clearly erroneous’ when the reviewing Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

When reviewing a magistrate judge report and recommendation, the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court “may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. Discussion Notwithstanding Judge Ricardo’s clear written notice regarding “objections,” the parties in this case failed to object to the Report. See Nambiar, 158 F.4th at 359 (“Ifa party fails to properly object to the R&R, the district judge reviews the R&R only for clear error.”). The Court adopts Judge Ricardo’s Report and his recommendations that Beavor’s cross-motion to dismiss be denied and Delphi’s motion for summary judgment be granted as to liability. See Report at 15 et seq.; id. at 16-30 (“Delphi makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment” and Beavor “fails to raise a genuine dispute of material fact with respect to an affirmative defense’’). Judge Ricardo also found that a dispute of material fact remains as to the amount of damages. Jd. at 30-31. The Court agrees that “the parties should engage in very limited discovery on this issue.” /d. at 32. Having reviewed the Report, the Court adopts all of Judge Ricardo’s findings and recommendations.

IV. Conclusion and Order Judge Ricardo’s Report is, as noted, adopted in its entirety. Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2013 WL 3486994, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2013) (“Having found no clear error on the face of the record, the Court adopts [the] Report and Recommendation in its entirety.”). Defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 16) is denied. And, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 1-2) is granted with respect to liability. Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion is denied as to the amount of damages only. The Court respectfully refers the case to Magistrate Judge Ricardo for a report and recommendation limited to the issue of damages.

Dated: March 24, 2026 Rd. e | Sopn Omen New York, New York RICHARD M. BERMAN, U.S.D.J.