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)

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