BOCK
v.
FIRSTLINE SECURITY, LLC
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 district court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation granting plaintiff's motion to approve a settlement agreement in a case against Firstline Security, LLC. The court dismissed the matter with prejudice while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement terms.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in its entirety and granted plaintiff's Motion to Approve Settlement. The case was dismissed with prejudice, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement terms.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.”
Establishes the standard for objecting to magistrate recommendations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed a Motion to Approve Settlement on August 12, 2024. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Panayotta D. Augustin-Birch, who issued…
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 De Novo Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS MATTER was referred to United States Magistrate Panayotta D. Augustin-Birch for a report and recommendation on the Plaintiff's Motion to Approve Settlement [ECF No. 6], filed on August 12, 2024. Judge Augustin-Birch has since issued a report, recommending that the Court grant the Motion to Approve Settlement. [ECF No. 11]. Neither party has submitted objections, and the time to do so has passed. After careful review of the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Augustin-Birch's report and recommendation in its entirety.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.” L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort, 208 F. App'x at 783–84 (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up).
The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge Augustin-Birch's report and recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Augustin-Birch's report is thorough, cogent, and compelling. The Court adopts the report and recommendation in its entirety and grants the Motion to Approve Settlement.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 11] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Approve Settlement [ECF No. 6] is GRANTED.
3. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on September 26, 2024.
DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record