Opinion
Civil Action 4:22-CV-00342
08-29-2023
ADAM BARKER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. ITL FOODS, LP d/b/a PIZZA HUT, Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DREW B. TIPTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the July 24, 2023 Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Bray. (Dkt. No. 44). Judge Bray made findings and conclusions and recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for FLSA Certification and Notice to Putative Class Members, (Dkt. No. 30), be granted in part. (Dkt. No. 44). The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72.
On August 7, 2023, Defendant filed objections to Magistrate Judge Bray's recommendation that Plaintiff's Motion for FLSA Certification and Notice to Putative Class Members be granted in part. (Dkt. No. 48). First, Defendant objects to Magistrate Judge Bray's articulation of the merits question. (Id. at 5-6). Second, Defendant objects to Magistrate Judge Bray's finding that the merits question can be answered collectively. (Id. at 6-7). Third, Defendant objects to Magistrate Judge Bray's finding that Defendant used a $.30 per mile reimbursement rate. (Id. at 7-8). Fourth, Defendant objects to Magistrate Judge Bray's finding that the proposed collective is similarly situated. (Id. at 8). Fifth, Defendant objects to Magistrate Judge Bray's hourly wage and tip analysis. (Id. at 8-9). Sixth, Defendant objects to Judge Bray's “cursory rejection” of two district court cases that Defendant cited. (Id. at 10). On August 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant's objections. (Dkt. No. 49).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and adopts it as the opinion of the Court.
It is therefore ordered that:
(1) Magistrate Judge Bray's M&R, (Dkt. No. 44), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court; and
(2) Plaintiff's Motion for FLSA Certification and Notice to Putative Class Members, (Dkt. No. 30), is GRANTED IN PART.
It is SO ORDERED.