Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hall v. United Group of Companies, 2:17-cv-607-FtM-29MRM. (2019)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20190107b69 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jan. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 07, 2019
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. STEELE , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #38), filed December 20, 2018, recommending that the Joint Motion to Approve [sic] Settlement and Dismiss Action With Prejudice (Doc. #37) be granted, and the Settlement Agreement and Release of the FLSA Claim (Doc. #37-1) be approved with a modification. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired. After condu
More

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #38), filed December 20, 2018, recommending that the Joint Motion to Approve [sic] Settlement and Dismiss Action With Prejudice (Doc. #37) be granted, and the Settlement Agreement and Release of the FLSA Claim (Doc. #37-1) be approved with a modification. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired.

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F.Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table).

The Magistrate Judge found that the parties' settlement was fair and reasonable with the exception of the waiver of jury trial provision because there was no indication that plaintiff received additional consideration for the waiver. After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #38) is hereby adopted and the findings incorporated herein.

2. The parties' Joint Motion to Approve [sic] Settlement and Dismiss Action With Prejudice (Doc. #37) is granted to the extent that the Settlement Agreement and Release of the FLSA Claim (Doc. #37-1) is approved as a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute except that the Waiver of Jury Trial provision is stricken and severed.

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing the case with prejudice, terminate all deadlines and motions, and close the file.

DONE and ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer