Enriquez v. Cherry Hill Market corp et al

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM & ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The R&R contains no error, let alone plain error. Accordingly, the Court adopts it without de novo review. See attached memorandum and order for details. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 12/20/2012. (Innelli, Michael)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------x
JOSE ENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated who were
employed by CHERRY HILL MARKET CORP.
and/or CHERRY HILL GOURMET, INC.
and/or DAVID ISAEV or any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by CHERRY HILL
MARKET CORP. and/or CHERRY HILL
GOURMET, INC. and DAVID ISAEV,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case No. 10-CV-5616 (FB) (MDG)

CHERRY HILL MARKET CORP. and CHERRY
HILL GOURMET, INC. and DAVID ISAEV
and/or any other entities affiliated with or
controlled by CHERRY HILL MARKET CORP.
and/or CHERRY HILL GOURMET, INC.
and/or DAVID ISAEV,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------x
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
On October 22, 2012, Magistrate Judge Go issued a report and recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) claims of opt-in
plaintiffs Emilio Yax Lopez, Salomon Castillo and Rosalyn Chavajay be dismissed due to
those plaintiffs’ failure to participate in discovery. The R&R recited that “[a]ny objections
must be filed . . . by November 8, 2012,” and that “[f]ailure to file objections within the
specified time waives the right to appeal.” R&R at 7. Plaintiffs’ counsel received electronic
notice of the R&R. To date, no objections have been filed.
If clear notice has been given of the consequences of failure to object, and there

are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002)
(“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a
magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of
the magistrate’s decision.”). The Court will excuse the failure to object, however, and
conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain
error. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir.
2000).
The R&R contains no error, let alone plain error. Accordingly, the Court
adopts it without de novo review.
SO ORDERED.

___________________________________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
December 20, 2012
Brooklyn, New York

2