William Johnson v. Roy Perdomo

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: January 7, 2026
• Docket: 1:24-cv-07857
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: WILLIAM JOHNSON, DATE FILED: 1/7/20 26 Plaintiff, 24-CV-7857 (VEC) -against- ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION ROY PERDOMO, Defendant. VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: WHEREAS on January 24, 2025, a Clerk’s Certificate of Default was entered against Defendant Perdomo, Dkt. 21; WHEREAS on March 14, 2025, this Court entered a Default Judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant Perdomo, Dkt. 38; WHEREAS on October 2, 2025, the Court referred this case to Magistrate JudgeStewart D.Aaronfor an inquest into the damages to be awarded in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant Perdomo, Dkt. 69; WHEREAS on October 3, 2025, Judge Aaron required Plaintiff to file a submission regarding the relief sought, including citations to appropriate legal authority, Dkt. 70; WHEREAS on October 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed the required submission, Dkt. 71, 74; WHEREAS on December 6, 2025, Judge Aaron issued a thorough and carefully reasoned Report & Recommendation (“R&R”)detailing Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim against Defendant Perdomo under Section 1981 and resulting “significant” emotional distress, parsing the factual record, comparing awards in analogous cases, and considering the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages, see Dkt. 78; WHEREAS Judge Aaron recommended that Plaintiff be awarded $150,000.00 in emotional distress damages and $200,000.00 in punitive damages, plus post-judgment interest on the full judgment amount, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, id.; WHEREAS Judge Aaron notified the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), they had fourteen days to file written objections to the R&R’s findings,

Dkt. 78 at 20;1 0F WHEREAS Judge Aaron further noted that failure to file objections within 14 days would result in both the waiver of objections and the preclusion of appellate review, id.; WHEREAS no objection was filed by either party; WHEREAS in reviewing an R&R, a district 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)(C); WHEREAS when, as here, no party objects to the R&R, the Court may accept the R&R provided that “there is no clear error on the face of the record,” Heredia v. Doe, 473 F. Supp. 2d 462, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Note; WHEREAS an error is clear when the reviewing court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,” see Cosme v. Henderson, 287 F.3d 152, 158 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20 (1954)); and WHEREAS careful review of the R&R reveals that there is no clear error.

1 Judge Aaron also cited Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) and (d), which add three additional days when service is made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), or (F). Here, service was made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), i.e., via mail. Regardless, no objections were filed at all, let alone within seventeen days. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R is adopted in full, and Plaintiff is awarded $150,000.00 in emotional distress damages and $200,000.00 in punitive damages, plus post- judgment interest on the full judgment amount, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, against Defendant Perdomo. Because the R&R gave the parties adequate warning, see Dkt. 78 at 20, the failure to file any objections to the R&R precludes appellate review of this decision, see Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.”). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to (1) enter judgment for Plaintiff consistent with this Order; (2) mail a copy of this Order to Defendant Roy Perdomo at 1951 Paulding Avenue, Apt 1 / Bronx, NY 10462; and (3) close this case.

SO ORDERED. Vode (or

Date: January 7, 2026 ~ VALERIE CAPRONI _ New York, New York United States District Judge