Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Molina v. Culinary Experts, Inc., 2:18-cv-771-FtM-29UAM. (2019)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20190404f47 Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 04, 2019
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. STEELE , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #20), filed March 26, 2019, recommending that the Joint Motion for Entry of Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case With Prejudice (Doc. #18) be granted in part and denied in part. On April 3, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Notice of No Objection (Doc. #21). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findin
More

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #20), filed March 26, 2019, recommending that the Joint Motion for Entry of Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case With Prejudice (Doc. #18) be granted in part and denied in part. On April 3, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Notice of No Objection (Doc. #21).

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 recommends approval of the parties Settlement Agreement and Release of FLSA Claims, and for dismissal of the case. The Magistrate Judge recommends denying the request to retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement agreement. 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. #20) is hereby adopted and the findings incorporated herein.

2. The parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case With Prejudice (Doc. #18) is granted except as to the request to retain jurisdiction, and the Settlement Agreement and Release of FLSA Claims (Docs. #18-1, #18-2) is approved as a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute.

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing the case with prejudice and the Court will not retain jurisdiction, 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