Fernandez v. City of Fruitland Park et al

Filing 35

ORDER adopting 34 Report and Recommendation; granting 33 Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 6/7/2017. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION

GEORGE FERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 5:16-cv-326-Oc-34PRL

CITY OF FRUITLAND PARK,
Defendant.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lammens’ Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 34; Report), entered on May 17, 2017, recommending that: 1.)
Paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement be stricken to the extent Plaintiff waives future
employment; 2.) the Court decline to retain jurisdiction; 3.) the Joint Motion for Approval of
Settlement (Dkt. No. 33; Motion) be granted; and 4.) the settlement agreement, as
modified, be approved. See Report at 5-6. 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). If no specific
objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de
novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir.
1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal
conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th

Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1
(M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).
The Court has conducted an independent examination of the record in this case
and a de novo review of the legal conclusions.

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant

pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (FLSA), seeking
recovery of unpaid overtime. See Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 16).
Thereafter, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations, which resulted in a resolution
of the issues and claims raised in this case. See Motion (Dkt. No. 33). Upon review of
the record, including the Report, Motion, and Settlement Agreement, the undersigned
concludes that the settlement, as modified below, represents a “reasonable and fair”
resolution of Plaintiff’s FLSA claims. Accordingly, the Court will accept and adopt Judge
Lammens’ Report.
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens’ Report and Recommendation (Dkt.
No. 34) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

2.

Paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 33, Ex. A) is STRICKEN
to the extent Plaintiff waives future employment.

3.

The Court declines to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

4.

The Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement (Dkt. No. 33) is GRANTED.

5.

For purposes of satisfying the FLSA, the Settlement Agreement, as modified
herein, is APPROVED.

-2-

6.

This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

7.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any pending motions or
deadlines as moot and close this file.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers this 7th day of June, 2017.

ja
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-