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)

Download PDF
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

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?