Filed: Jul. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER FREDERIC BLOCK , Senior District Judge . On June 13, 2019, Magistrate Judge Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the settlement in this action be approved. That recommendation followed a review of the settlement agreement in accordance with Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 , 206 (2d Cir. 2015). 1 The R&R advised that objections were due fourteen days after the service of the R&R, which was effected electronically on all parties. T
Summary: ORDER FREDERIC BLOCK , Senior District Judge . On June 13, 2019, Magistrate Judge Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the settlement in this action be approved. That recommendation followed a review of the settlement agreement in accordance with Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 , 206 (2d Cir. 2015). 1 The R&R advised that objections were due fourteen days after the service of the R&R, which was effected electronically on all parties. To..
More
ORDER
FREDERIC BLOCK, Senior District Judge.
On June 13, 2019, Magistrate Judge Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the settlement in this action be approved. That recommendation followed a review of the settlement agreement in accordance with Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015).1 The R&R advised that objections were due fourteen days after the service of the R&R, which was effected electronically on all parties. To date, 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 error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face of 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.
