IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
AARON FENWICK, 
                   Plaintiff, 
v. 
SEABORNE VIRGIN ISLANDS, INC. and 
SEASTAR HOLDINGS, INC., 
                   Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
 
)                 Case No. 1:20-cv-0032 
)                
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
ORDER1 
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation by 
Magistrate Judge Emile A. Henderson III, filed on February 3, 2025, recommending dismissal 
of the complaint. (ECF No. 54.) The Court conducted a de novo review of the record and has 
made an independent determination finding no error.2 Accordingly, it is hereby 
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 54, is 
APPROVED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court as if fully set forth herein; it is further 
 
ORDERED that the Complaint filed on July 22, 2020, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without 
prejudice; it is further 
 
ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served on Aaron Fenwick at his last 
known address provided to the Court by certified mail return receipt requested and that a 
copy of the return receipt shall be filed on the docket; and it is further 
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE that case.  
 
Dated: March 4, 2026 
 
 
 
/s/ 
 
_________ 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
ROBERT A. MOLLOY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Judge 
 
1 Due to the retirement of the judge previously assigned to this case, the undersigned, exercising his authority 
as Chief Judge of the District Court, reassigned this case to himself on February 17, 2026. 
2 See Hill v. Barnacle, 655 Fed. Appx. 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: 1:20-cv-00032-RAM-EAH     Document #: 57     Filed: 03/04/26     Page 1 of 1