Hammerhead Construction LLC v. Hoffman et al
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN HAMMERHEAD CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Plaintiff, v. HARVEY HOFFMAN AND JANICE HOFFMAN, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:23-cv-00014 ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 177) of Magistrate Judge Emile A. Henderson III, filed on February 23, 2026, recommending the denial of Defendants[‘] Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Complaint, and for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts I, II & V of Their Counterclaim and to Pierce Hammerhead's Veil (ECF No. 85). Defendants requested and received two extensions of time within which to file an objection to the said R&R, with the last deadline expiring on March 23, 2026. See Order (ECF No. 183), entered March 20, 2026. Defendants filed an objection on March 30, 2026, see ECF No. 185, a week after their time for filing expired, without requesting leave to file out of time. The said Objection being untimely, the Court will not consider it. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-3_23-cv-00014/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_23-cv-00014-6.pdf
SHA-256 0a1b8214e837afbc6cfd41a57a8078c7007fa91b7efa7c35a608eeefb9509a00
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-0a1b8214e837
Document text
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN HAMMERHEAD CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Plaintiff, v. HARVEY HOFFMAN AND JANICE HOFFMAN, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:23-cv-00014 ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 177) of Magistrate Judge Emile A. Henderson III, filed on February 23, 2026, recommending the denial of Defendants[‘] Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Complaint, and for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts I, II & V of Their Counterclaim and to Pierce Hammerhead's Veil (ECF No. 85). Defendants requested and received two extensions of time within which to file an objection to the said R&R, with the last deadline expiring on March 23, 2026. See Order (ECF No. 183), entered March 20, 2026. Defendants filed an objection on March 30, 2026, see ECF No. 185, a week after their time for filing expired, without requesting leave to file out of time. The said Objection being untimely, the Court will not consider it. The time for filing any objection having expired, and the Court having conducted a de novo review of this matter and making an independent determination finding no error in the R&R,1 it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Objection to Magistrate’s Feb. 23, 2026 Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 185, is OVERRULED as untimely; it is further 1 See Hill v. Barnacle, 655 F. App’x 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2016) (opining that the district court is not required to make separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation de novo under 28 U.SC. § 636(b)) (citing Elmendorf Grafica, Inc. v. D.S. America, Inc., 48 F.3d 46, 49-50 (1st Cir. 1995) (opining that “[28 U.S.C. § 636(b)] authorizes the district court to adopt in whole as well as in part the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Where, as here, the magistrate judge decided on an undisputed factual record, the district court was certainly not required to rehash the magistrate judge’s reasoning. The role of the magistrate judge is ‘to relieve courts of unnecessary work’”) (citations omitted)))). Case: 3:23-cv-00014-RAM-EAH Document #: 186 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 1 of 2 Hammerhead Construction, LLC v. Hoffman Case No. 3:23-cv-0014 Order ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Henderson’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 177, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court as if fully set forth herein; it is further ORDERED that Defendants[‘] Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Complaint, and For Partial Summary Judgment on Counts I, II & V of Their Counterclaim and to Pierce Hammerhead's Veil, ECF No. 85, is DENIED. Date: March 31, 2026 /s/_Robert A. Molloy_________ ROBERT A. MOLLOY Chief Judge Case: 3:23-cv-00014-RAM-EAH Document #: 186 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 2 of 2