Bock v. Firstline Security, LLC et al

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 6 Motion for Settlement filed by Mark Edward Bock, 11 Report and Recommendations; granting 6 Motion for Settlement; Adopting 11 Report and Recommendations on 6 Motion for Settlement filed by Mark Edward Bock, 11 Report and Recommendations,. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling Closing Case. Signed by Judge David S. Leibowitz on 9/26/2024. See attached document for full details. (pcs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 0:24-cv-60796-LEIBOWITZ/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH
MARK EDWARD BOCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
FIRSTLINE SECURITY, LLC, et al. ,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS MATTER was referred to United States Magistrate Panayotta D. Augustin-Birch for a
report and recommendation on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Settlement [ECF No. 6], filed on
August 12, 2024. Judge Augustin-Birch has since issued a report, recommending that the Court grant
the Motion to Approve Settlement. [ECF No. 11]. Neither party has submitted objections, and the
time to do so has passed. After careful review of the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the
Court adopts Judge Augustin-Birch’s report and recommendation in its entirety.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must
file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and
recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc.,
208 F. App'x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting
legal authority.” L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity
requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort, 208 F. App'x at 783–84 (cleaned up). To

the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed
for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up).
The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge Augustin-Birch’s report and
recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the report and
recommendation for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but
also notes that Judge Augustin-Birch’s report is thorough, cogent, and compelling. The Court adopts
the report and recommendation in its entirety and grants the Motion to Approve Settlement.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 11] is
AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Settlement [ECF No. 6] is GRANTED.
3. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court retains jurisdiction to
enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on September 26, 2024.

cc:

counsel of record