SPRADLIN
v.
KEY INSTALLATION SERVICES, 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 adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, approving the parties' settlement agreement and dismissing the case with prejudice.
Plaintiffs and defendants submitted a joint motion to approve a settlement agreement. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion and dismiss…
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 Settlement Approval cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 45; Report) entered by the Honorable Laura Lothman Lambert, United States Magistrate Judge, on July 12, 2024. In the Report, Judge Lambert recommends that the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 37; Motion) be granted to the extent that the Court enter an Order and Stipulated Final Judgment approving the parties' settlement agreement and that the case be dismissed with prejudice. See Report at 9. The parties have no objections to the Report. See Joint Notice of Non-Objection to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 46).
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 Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 37-1), the undersigned concludes that the settlement represents a “reasonable and fair” resolution of Plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, the Court will accept and adopt the Report.
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 45) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. The Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 37) is GRANTED to the extent that the Court enters this Order and Stipulated Final Judgment.
3. The Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 37-1) is 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 17th day of July, 2024.
Mania Moules Howard
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
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)