Opinion
Case No: 2:13-cv-779-FtM-38CM
04-27-2015
CHRISTINA RUDLAND and SETH BISHOP, individually Plaintiffs, v. DMS HOSPITALITY LLC, MATTHEW HANSON and DARRELL HANSON, Defendants.
Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
This matter comes before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #70) filed on April 24, 2015. Judge Mirando recommends granting the parties' Revised Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Dismissal of the Action with Prejudice (Doc. #67) filed on April 13, 2015, approving the parties' settlement agreement (Doc. #67-1) as a "fair and reasonable resolution of a bone fide dispute" of the claims raised under the Fair Labor Standards Act. (Doc. #70). The parties do not object to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #70). Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also 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)(C). 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).
After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration of Judge Mirando's findings and recommendations, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #70).
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #70) is ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein.
2. The parties' Revised Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Dismissal of the Action with Prejudice (Doc. #67) is GRANTED, and their Settlement Agreement (Doc. #67-1) is approved as fair and reasonable.
3. The Clerk of Court IS DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly, dismiss the case with prejudice, terminate all deadlines and motions, and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 27th day of April, 2015.
/s/ _________
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record