Miguel v. Mi Bella Puebla Corp. et al

Filing 33

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. See attached. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. Ordered by Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr on 10/24/2017. (Diouf, Marietou)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------X BARBA MENDEZ MIGUEL, Individually and on BEHALF OF ALL OTHER COLLECTIVE PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, 16-CV-01593 (SJ) (RER) -against- ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MI BELLA PUEBLA CORP., ANTOLIN TUETLE, GROMEX CORPORATION, EDUARDO TEUTTLE, CHOLULA PUEBLA CORP., ERIC ZAQCATELCO, and JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------X APPEARANCES PARK & SIM LAW GROUP, LLP LAW OFFICES OF GARY S. PARK, P.C. 39-01 Main Street Suite 608 Flushing, NY 11354 By: Sang Joon Sim Yosef Hyunseong Lee Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative collective Plaintiffs JOHNSON, Senior District Judge: Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Ramon Reyes. Judge Reyes issued the Report on September 6, 2017, and provided the parties with the requisite amount of time to file 1 any objections. Neither party filed any objections to the Report. For the reasons stated herein, this Court affirms and adopts the Report in its entirety. A district court judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine certain motions pending before the Court and to submit to the Court proposed findings of fact and a recommendation as to the disposition of the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 10 days of service of the recommendation, any party may file written objections to the magistrate’s report. See id. Upon de novo review of those portions of the record to which objections were made, the district court judge may affirm or reject the recommendations. See id. The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal this Court’s Order. See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Small v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989). 2 In this case, objections to Magistrate Judge Reyes’s recommendations were due on September 20, 2017. No objections to the Report were filed with this Court. Upon review of the recommendations, this Court adopts and affirms Magistrate Judge Reyes’s Report in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. Dated:October 24, 2017 Brooklyn, NY _________/s/___________________ Sterling Johnson, Jr., U.S.D.J. 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?