Villalta v. Cheeburger Cheeburger et al

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM and ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts MJ Orenstein's Report and Recommendation without de novo review and directs the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the Report and Recommendation. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 12/4/2017. (Innelli, Michael)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------x
LINO A. QUINTEROS VILLALTA, On
behalf of himself and others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case No. 16-CV-5862 (FB) (JO)

-againstCheeburger Cheeburger, George
Philippakos,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------x
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff:
ANASTASI PARDALIS,
ELLEANA MAIDIOTIS,
JOSEPH D. NOHAVICKA,
ARIADNE ANNA PANAGOPOULOU
ALEXANDROU
Pardalis Nohavicka LLP
35-10 Broadway, Suite 200
Astoria, NY 11106

For the Defendants:
ROBERT WILLIAM HELLNER,
HEATHER C. HILI,
MATTHEW P. GIZZO
Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman,
LLP
685 Third Avenue, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10017

BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
Plaintiff Lino A. Quinteros Villalta and Defendant Cheeburger Cheeburger
jointly seek approval of a written Settlement Agreement dated August 14, 2017. The
Court referred the matter to the assigned magistrate judge. On September 8, 2017,
Magistrate Judge Orenstein issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
concluding that the Settlement Agreement was fair and reasonable and recommending
that it be approved.

The R&R warned that failure to file objections within fourteen days of receipt
waives the right to appeal the district court’s order. No objections to the R&R have
been filed, and the time to file objections has elapsed.
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 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 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); no
such error appears here. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R without de novo
review and directs the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the R&R.
SO ORDERED.
_/s/ Frederic Block_
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
December 4, 2017

2