ORDER

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lammens' Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 23; Report), entered on December 13, 2017, recommending that the Joint Motion for Approval of the FLSA Settlement (Dkt. No. 22; Motion) be granted and that the Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 22-1) be approved. See Report at 3. Neither party has filed objections to the Report, and the time for doing so has 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. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (FLSA) and Florida's Minimum Wage Act, Fla. Stat. § 448.110. See Complaint (Dkt. No. 2). 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. 22). 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 FLSA claim and the related wage claims. Accordingly, the Court will accept and adopt Judge Lammens' Report.

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED:

DONE AND ORDERED.