OLASCOAGA

v.

T-SHIRT STATION STORES, LLC

THIS MATTER was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Panayotta D. Augustin-Birch for a report and recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 44]. [See ECF No. 45]. Judge Augustin-Birch has since issued a Report and Recommendation (the "R&R"), recommending the Motion be GRANTED. [ECF No. 49]. No objections to the R&R were filed during the 14-day objection period. After careful review of the R&R, the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 49].

LEGAL STANDARD

After conducting a review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F. 2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Macort v. Prem.

Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F. 3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999)).

CONCLUSION

In the absence of any objection and after reviewing the factual allegations and legal conclusions, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Judge Augustin-Birch's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 49] is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes.

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [ECF No. 44] is GRANTED. Default judgment is granted on Count I (Pregnancy Discrimination under Title VII/Pregnancy Discrimination Act), Count II (Pregnancy Discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act), Count III (FLSA wage claims), and Count VI (Florida Minimum Wage Act claims) of the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) [ECF No. 11].

3. Count V (FLSA retaliation)—misnumbered Count III—of the FAC [see ECF No. 11 at 8–9] is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. [fn 1]

4. The Clerk is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT which shall read “Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Seychell Olascoaga and against Defendant T-Shirt Station Stores, LLC, in the amount of $150,590.00 ($180.00 unpaid overtime wages; $640.00 unpaid minimum wages, $820.00 liquidated damages; $48,950.00 back wages; and $100,000.00 emotional distress damages)."

5. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and TERMINATE any remaining deadlines. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 20, 2025.

cc: counsel of record

DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

[fn 1]: Count IV of the FAC was asserted against individual Defendant Mostafa Hussein only. [See FAC, ECF No. 11 at 7–8]. On September 10, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed all claims against Hussein, so Count IV was not a live claim at the time Plaintiff moved for default judgment against Defendant T- Shirt Station Stores, LLC.