Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BEDNARZ v. PAT THE PLUMBER, INC., 5:11-cv-506-Oc-34TBS. (2012)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20120403910 Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2012
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19; Report), entered on March 16, 2012, recommending that the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement (Dkt. No. 15; Motion) be granted, that the Amended Settlement Agreement be approved, and that this case be dismissed with prejudice. See Report at 5. On March 19, 2012, the parties filed a notice advising the Court that they are waiving any a
More

ORDER

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19; Report), entered on March 16, 2012, recommending that the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement (Dkt. No. 15; Motion) be granted, that the Amended Settlement Agreement be approved, and that this case be dismissed with prejudice. See Report at 5. On March 19, 2012, the parties filed a notice advising the Court that they are waiving any and all objections to the Report and Recommendation. See Joint Notice of Non-Objection Regarding Report & Recommendation Dated March 16, 2012 (Dtk. No. 20).

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 pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (FLSA), seeking recovery of unpaid overtime. 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. 15). Upon review of the record, including the Report, Motion, and Amended Settlement Agreement, the undersigned concludes that the settlement represents a "reasonable and fair" resolution of Plaintiff's FLSA claims. Accordingly, the Court will accept and adopt Judge Smith's Report.

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

2. The Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement (Dkt. No. 15) is GRANTED.

3. For purposes of satisfying the FLSA, the Amended Settlement Agreement 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.

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