Filed: Sep. 11, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2013
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens' Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 81; Report), entered on August 16, 2013, recommending that the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Release Agreements and for Dismissal With Prejudice (Dkt. No. 78; Motion) be granted, that the Clarified Settlement Agreement be approved and that this case be dismissed with prejudice. See Report at 4. Neither party has filed objection
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens' Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 81; Report), entered on August 16, 2013, recommending that the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Release Agreements and for Dismissal With Prejudice (Dkt. No. 78; Motion) be granted, that the Clarified Settlement Agreement be approved and that this case be dismissed with prejudice. See Report at 4. Neither party has filed objections..
More
ORDER
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens' Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 81; Report), entered on August 16, 2013, recommending that the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Release Agreements and for Dismissal With Prejudice (Dkt. No. 78; Motion) be granted, that the Clarified Settlement Agreement be approved and that this case be dismissed with prejudice. See Report at 4. Neither party has filed objections to the Report, and the time for doing so has now passed.
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. Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (FLSA), seeking recovery of unpaid compensation. See Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 36). 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. 78). Upon review of the record, including the Report, Motion, and Clarified Settlement Agreement, the undersigned concludes that the settlement represents a "reasonable and fair" resolution of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims.
Accordingly, the Court will accept and adopt Judge Lammens' Report.
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens' Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 81) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. The Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Release Agreements and for Dismissal With Prejudice (Dkt. No. 78) is GRANTED.
3. For purposes of satisfying the FLSA, the Clarified Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 80-1) 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.
