Buck v. Anderson-Collins, Inc. et al

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING Report and Recommendation 26 and GRANTING the Motion for Entry of Judgment 25 . This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The CLERK is directed to terminate any pending motions and CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 3/19/2009. (TRN)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION JANE BUCK, and other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANDERSON-COLLINS, INC., a Florida corporation formerly known as SanfordOrlando Kennel Club, Inc., Defendant. _________________________________/ Case No.: 6:08-cv-00477-Orl-35DAB ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Motion for Entry of Judgment in Accordance with Defendants' Offer of Judgment and Plaintiff's Acceptance of Offer of Judgment ("the Motion"), filed on February 6, 2009. (Dkt. 25). On March 4, 2009, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Motion be granted. (Dkt. 26). Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed. 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, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge "shall make a -1- de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. 2 (1976)). Even 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 Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 26) is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order; 2. The Motion for Entry of Judgment in Accordance with Defendants' Offer of Judgment and Plaintiff's Acceptance of Offer of Judgment (Dkt. 25) is GRANTED. The settlement is approved by the Court; 3. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own legal fees and costs, except as specified in the parties' settlement agreement. No retainer agreement between Plaintiff and counsel shall override or alter the amount of settlement proceeds due to Plaintiff in -2- accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement as approved by this Order; and 4. The CLERK is directed to terminate any pending motions and CLOSE this case. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, this 19th day of March 2009. Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record -3-

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?