Baker v. Naples Urgent Care, PL et al

Filing 36

OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 32 Motion to approve settlement and to dismiss to electing an option and complying no later than August 11, 2017; adopting and incorporating 33 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 7/12/2017. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
GEORGE BAKER, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-57-FtM-99MRM

NAPLES URGENT CARE, PL, a
Florida limited liability
company and ROBERT MCGANN,
an individual,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #33), filed
June 26, 2017, recommending that that the Joint Motion to Approve
Settlement and to Dismiss With Prejudice (Doc. #32) be denied
without prejudice.

No objections have been filed and the time to

do so has expired.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings
and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982),
cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983).

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.
636(b)(1).

28 U.S.C. §

The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo,

even in the absence of an objection.

See Cooper-Houston v.

Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro
Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993),
aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table).
The

Magistrate

Judge

recommends

denial

because

numerous

issues preclude a finding of fairness and reasonableness.

More

specifically, the Settlement Agreement Pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (Doc. #32-1) fails to delineate what portion of the
proceeds

is

attributable

to

constitutes liquidated damages.

back

wages,

and

what

portion

Further, the parties failed to

specify the amount of fees to be paid to counsel for plaintiff,
yet included language that counsel would otherwise bear their own
costs and attorneys’ fees.

Lastly, the Magistrate Judge noted

that there was no rationale provided for plaintiff’s recovery to
be reduced if defendant Baker pays by the end of the year.

The

recommendation was for denial without prejudice to the parties
electing an option to either file an amended motion, or a Case
Management Report no later than August 11, 2017.
After conducting an independent examination of the file and
upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the Court
accepts the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is now

- 2 -

ORDERED:
1.

The

Report

and

Recommendation

(Doc.

#33)

is

hereby

adopted and the findings incorporated herein.
2.

The parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and to

Dismiss With Prejudice (Doc. #32) is denied without prejudice to
the parties electing an option and complying no later than August
11, 2017.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of July, 2017.

Copies:
Hon. Mac R. McCoy
United States Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented parties

- 3 -

12th

day