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: 3:21-cv-00046-RAM-EAH     Document #: 279     Filed: 03/31/26     Page 1 of 2
Hammerhead Construction, LLC v. Hoffman 
Case No. 3:23-cv-0014 
Order 
Page 2 of 2 
 
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: 3:21-cv-00046-RAM-EAH     Document #: 279     Filed: 03/31/26     Page 2 of 2