Michalow et al v. East Coast Restoration & Consulting Corp. et al

Filing 32

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. For the reasons stated in the attached document, Magistrate Judge Go's 31 report and Recommendation dated 11/17/11, recommending that this Court grant 23 the parties' motion to certify this action as a class action and add William Gonzalez as a class representative, is adopted in its entirety. So Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 12/29/11. (Manuel, Germaine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------)(
DARIUSZ MICHALOW, eta!.,

Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

-against09-cv-5475 (SLT) (MDG)
EAST COAST RESTORATION & CONSULTING
CORP., eta!.,
Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------)(
TOWNES, United States District Judge:

On December 15, 2009 Plaintiffs filed the instant action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, New York Labor Law, and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. On April18, 2011,
the parties moved to certify the state-law class. By order dated November I, 2011, this Court
referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Marilyn Go for a Report and Recommendation
("R&R").
Magistrate Judge Go issued her R&R on November 17,2011, recommending that this
Court grant the parties' motion to certify this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to add William Gonzalez as a class representative. The
R&R specifically advised the parties that any objections needed to be filed on or before
December 5, 2011.
To date, neither party has filed any objections to the R&R. A district court is not
required to review the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of
a report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Nonetheless, when no objections are filed, many courts seek to satisfy
themselves "that there is no clear error on the face ofthe record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory
committee note (1983 Addition); see also Edwards v. Town ofHuntington, No. 05 Civ. 339
(NGG) (AKT), 2007 WL 2027913, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July II, 2007). Accordingly, this Court has

reviewed the R& R for clear error on the face of the record. The Court finds no clear error, and
therefore adopts the R&R in its entirety as the opinion ofthe Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(l)

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Magistrate Judge Go's Report and Recommendation dated
November 17,2011, recommending that this Court grant the parties' motion to certify this action
as a class action and add William Gonzalez as a class representative, is adopted in its entirety.

SO ORDERED.

s/ SLT
/SANDRAL. TOWNES
United States District Judge

'1,

Dated: December (1.... 2011
Brooklyn, New York

2