Filed: Dec. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 06, 2018
Summary: ORDER FREDERIC BLOCK , Senior District Judge . On October 11, 2018, Magistrate Judge Gold issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the settlement in this action be approved. The R&R followed a hearing pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 , 206 (2d Cir. 2015). A favorable Cheeks finding was entered on August 15, 2018. See Dkt. 34. The R&R was served electronically on all parties and advised that objections were due by October 15, 2018.
Summary: ORDER FREDERIC BLOCK , Senior District Judge . On October 11, 2018, Magistrate Judge Gold issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the settlement in this action be approved. The R&R followed a hearing pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 , 206 (2d Cir. 2015). A favorable Cheeks finding was entered on August 15, 2018. See Dkt. 34. The R&R was served electronically on all parties and advised that objections were due by October 15, 2018. T..
More
ORDER
FREDERIC BLOCK, Senior District Judge.
On October 11, 2018, Magistrate Judge Gold issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the settlement in this action be approved. The R&R followed a hearing pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015). A favorable Cheeks finding was entered on August 15, 2018. See Dkt. 34. The R&R was served electronically on all parties and advised that objections were due by October 15, 2018. This appears to have been a typographical error, as the fourteen-day deadline would have ended on October 25, and not October 15. In any case, as of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed.
When no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, the Court may adopt it without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."). The Court may excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000).
No plain error appears in the R&R. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R. The settlement is approved and the Clerk is directed to close the case.
SO ORDERED.
