BUSTAMANTE
v.
SUPERIOR SCAFFOLDING & INSULATION INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to approve the settlement and dismiss the case with prejudice.
Plaintiff and Defendant filed a joint motion to approve a settlement and dismiss the case. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion. No ob…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17; Report) entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge, on December 8, 2022. In the Report, Judge Barksdale recommends that the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and to Dismiss the Case With Prejudice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Dkt. No. 16; Motion) be granted, the settlement be approved, and the case be dismissed with prejudice. See Report at 9. No objections to the Report have been filed, 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). Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.1 As such, the Court reviews those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection was filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See
id.; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge’s] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F. 3d 1295,
1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become 11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.”).
Upon review of the record, including the Report, Motion, and Full and Final Release of Claims (Dkt. No. 16-1), the undersigned concludes that the settlement represents a “reasonable and fair” resolution of Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the Court will accept and adopt the Report.
APPROVED.
4, This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines as moot and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 3rd day of January, 2023.
United States District Judge
ja Copies to: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985)
- Dupree v. Warden, Attorney Gen., State of Ala., 715 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2013)