Filed: Jan. 17, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2020
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17; Report) entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 2, 2020. In the Report, Judge Barksdale recommends that the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and Memorandum in Support Thereof (Dkt. No. 16; Motion) be granted, that the Settlement Agreement be approved, and that the case be dismissed with prejudice. See Report at
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17; Report) entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 2, 2020. In the Report, Judge Barksdale recommends that the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and Memorandum in Support Thereof (Dkt. No. 16; Motion) be granted, that the Settlement Agreement be approved, and that the case be dismissed with prejudice. See Report at 7..
More
ORDER
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17; Report) entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 2, 2020. In the Report, Judge Barksdale recommends that the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and Memorandum in Support Thereof (Dkt. No. 16; Motion) be granted, that the Settlement Agreement be approved, and that the case be dismissed with prejudice. See Report at 7-8. The parties have no objections to the Report and Recommendation. See Joint Notice of Non-Objection to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18).
The 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). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).
The Court has conducted an independent examination of the record in this case and a de novo review of the legal conclusions. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (FLSA). See Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Dkt. No. 1). Thereafter, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations, which resulted in a resolution of the issues and claims raised in this case. See Motion (Dkt. No. 16). Upon review of the record, including the Report, Motion, and Settlement Agreement, the undersigned concludes that the settlement represents a "reasonable and fair" resolution of Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the Court will accept and adopt Judge Barksdale's Report.
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. The Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and Memorandum in Support Thereof (Dkt. No. 16) is GRANTED.
3. For purposes of satisfying the FLSA, the Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 16-1) is APPROVED.
4. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any pending motions or deadlines as moot and close this file.
DONE AND ORDERED.
