Rivera v. Golfview Golf & Racquet Club Community Associations, Inc. et al

Filing 43

ORDER adopting 41 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 40 Joint MOTION for Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice filed by Dennis Catoe, Golfview Golf & Racquet Club Community Associations, Inc., Daisy Rive ra. The Report and Recommendation 41 is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein. The parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. #40) is GRANTED, and the Settleme nt Agreement and General Release [40-1] is approved as fair and reasonable. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly, dismiss the case with prejudice, terminate all deadlines and motions, and close the file.Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 9/11/2015. (LMF)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION DAISY RIVERA, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:14-cv-718-FtM-38MRM GOLFVIEW GOLF & RACQUET CLUB COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS, INC. and DENNIS CATOE, Defendants. / ORDER1 This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #41) filed on September 8, 2015. Judge McCoy recommends granting the parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. #40) and approving the Settlement Agreement and General Release (Doc. #40-1) as a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act. (Doc. #41). The parties do not object to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. #42). Thus, this matter is ripe for review. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's 1 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court. report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See CooperHouston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). After independently examining the file and upon considering Judge McCoy's findings and recommendations, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #41). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #41) is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein. 2. The parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. #40) is GRANTED, and the Settlement Agreement and General Release (Doc. #40-1) is approved as fair and reasonable. 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly, dismiss the case with prejudice, terminate all deadlines and motions, and close the file. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 11th day of September, 2015. Copies: All Parties of Record 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?