Jamieson v. Securities America, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | USDC SDEE □□ + i} DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | vere ae MOE (D) eee ee ee nee eee eee BLECEROTGR ALE. nerke —_ ROBERT JAMIESON; JUDITH JAMIESON; — bean Sl alga Vx ROBERT JAMIESON AS TRUSTEE FOR : A a □ g THE RAYMOND DAVID JAMIESON ee □□ a IRREVOCABLE GRANDCHILDREN’S □ TRUST; and JUDITH JAMIESON AS : We □ TRUSTEE FOR THE JAMIESON FAMILY Ss 2 FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs ORDER ADOPTING REPORT □□ , AND RECOMMENDATION □ : □□ 19 CV 1817 (VB) ca SECURITIES AMERICA, INC.; SECURITIES AMERICA ADVISORS, INC.; : HECTOR A. MAY; VANIA MAY BELL; : and EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PLANNERS, INC., Defendants. : re ee □□ een nee eX Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy’s Report and Recommendation, dated February 22, 2022 (Doc. #98), and Supplemental Report and Recommendation, dated March 17, 2022 (Doc. #104) (collectively referred to herein as “R&R”), in response to the Court’s Order of Reference for an inquest on damages after entry of a default judgment as to liability. (Docs. ##83, 84). Judge McCarthy recommended entry of a default judgment against defendants Hector A. May and Executive Compensation Planners, Inc., in the total amount of $31,632,020, plus post- judgment interest at the statutory rate running from the date of entry of judgment. Familiarity with the factual and procedural background of this case is presumed. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court. A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation “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). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, but they must be “specific[,] written,” and submitted within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Insofar as a report and recommendation deals with a dispositive motion, a district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which timely objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record. Lewis v. Zon, 573 F. Supp. 2d 804, 811 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). The clearly erroneous standard also applies when a party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments. Ortiz v. Barkley, 558 F. Supp. 2d 444, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). No party has objected to Judge McCarthy’s thorough and well-reasoned R&R. The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise.

CONCLUSION The R&R is adopted in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. The Court will separately enter a default judgment against defendants Hector A. May and Executive Compensation Planners, Inc., in the total amount of $31,632,020, plus post-judgment interest at the statutory rate running from the date of entry of judgment. Chambers will mail a copy of this Order as well as the default judgment to defendants Hector A. May and Executive Compensation Planners, Inc., at the following address: Hector A. May Executive Compensation Planners, Inc. Register No. 86417-054 FCI Danbury Federal Correctional Institution Route 37 Danbury, CT 06811 Dated: May 2, 2022 White Plains, NY SO ORDERED Rerue Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge