Guo v. Golden Globe Travel Agency Inc. et al

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court adopts Judge Pollak's R&R in its entirety. This action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 1/20/2017. (Hawkins, Salah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------YA YI GUO,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
16-CV-766 (MKB) (CLP)

v.
GOLDEN GLOBE TRAVEL AGENCY INC., AI
XIA ZHAN, and JOHN DOE and JANE DOE
#1–10,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:
On February 14, 2016, Plaintiff Ya Yi Guo commenced the above-captioned action
against Defendants Golden Globe Travel Agency Inc., Ai Xia Zhan, and John and Jane Doe # 1–
10, seeking unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and postjudgment interest, and attorney’s fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
§ 201 et seq. (“FLSA”), New York Labor Law § 650 et seq. (“NYLL”), and the New York Code
of Rules and Regulations, 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 146 (“NYCRR”). (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) On
July 15, 2016, before Defendants filed an answer or otherwise responded to the Complaint,
Plaintiff notified the Court that the parties had reached a resolution on the matter and informed
the Court that, within thirty (30) days, they would file a settlement agreement and fairness letter
for the Court’s approval pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d
Cir. 2015). No settlement agreement or fairness papers were filed. (Status Report, Docket Entry
No. 10.) Subsequently, on September 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(I)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Pl.
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Docket Entry No. 12.)

By report and recommendation dated September 12, 2016 (the “R&R”), Magistrate Judge
Cheryl Pollak recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff’s request for voluntary dismissal.
(R&R 3–4, Docket Entry No. 14.) No party has objected to the R&R.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s recommended ruling “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)(1)(C). “[F]ailure to object timely to a magistrate judge’s report may operate
as a waiver of any further judicial review of the decision, as long as the parties receive clear
notice of the consequences of their failure to object.” Eustache v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
621 F. App’x 86, 87 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38
(2d Cir. 1997)); see also Almonte v. Suffolk Cty., 531 F. App’x 107, 109 (2d Cir. 2013) (“As a
rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge’s report
waives further judicial review of the point.” (quoting Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir.
2003))); Wagner & Wagner, LLP v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile,
P.C., 596 F.3d 84, 92 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[A] party waives appellate review of a decision in a
magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation if the party fails to file timely objections
designating the particular issue.” (first citing Cephas, 328 F.3d at 107; and then citing Mario v.
P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002))).

2

The Court has reviewed the unopposed R&R and, finding no clear error, the Court adopts
Judge Pollak’s R&R in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This action is dismissed
without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED:
s/ MKB
MARGO K. BRODIE
United States District Judge
Dated: January 20, 2017
Brooklyn, New York

3