BURKEL
v.
UNION COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
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 FLSA settlement agreement and dismissing the case with prejudice.
Plaintiff and Defendant sought approval of a settlement agreement and release in an FLSA case. The Magistrate Judge recommended approval and dismissal…
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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 22; Report) entered by the Honorable Joel B. Toomey, United States Magistrate Judge, on October 25, 2022. In the Report, Judge Toomey recommends that the Joint Motion to Approve FLSA Settlement Agreement and Release and for Dismissal With Prejudice (Dkt. No. 21; Motion) be granted, the parties’ FLSA Settlement Agreement and Release (Dkt. No. 21-1; Agreement) be approved, and this case be dismissed with prejudice. See Report at 1, 7. Neither party has filed objections to the Report, 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.”).
GRANTED.
3. The FLSA Settlement Agreement and Release (Dkt. No. 21-1) is
APPROVED.
4, This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending motions and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 14th day of November, 2022.
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)