Barker et al v. The City of Troy, New York et al

Filing 30

DECISION and ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 27) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that the Stipulation of settlement (Dkt. No. 25), and all of its terms, is APPROVED. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on February 02, 2012. (sas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
STEVEN BARKER; JOHN BECKER;
PATRICK BORNT; WILLIAM BOWLES;
JOHN COMITALE; ROBERT
FITZGERALD; RANDALL FRENCH;
ROBERT GAUDETTE; BRIAN GROSS;
ROBERT HAYDEN; JEFFREY
HOOVER; SEAN KITTLE; MARK
MALOY; MICHAEL PARROW; KEVIN
SESSIONS; and MATTHEW
MONTANINO,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

1:10-CV-01488 (LEK/RFT)

THE CITY OF TROY, NEW YORK;
HARRY TUTUNJIAN, in his official
capacity as Mayor of the City of Troy, New
York; and JOHN TEDESCO, in his official
capacity as Chief of Police of the City of
Troy, New York,
Defendants.
___________________________________
DECISION and ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on January
30, 2012, by the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge. Dkt. No. 27
(“Report-Recommendation”).1 Both Plaintiffs and Defendants have submitted Status Reports
before the Court indicating that they do not object to Judge Treece’s findings in the ReportRecommendation. Dkt. Nos. 28, 29.
“A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
1

By Order dated January 27, 2012, the Court referred this matter to Judge Treece for a
report-recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Dkt. No. 26.

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After examining the
record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain
error or manifest injustice. In light of Judge Treece’s thorough consideration of the parties’ joint
stipulation and the proceedings in this matter, and both parties’ submissions stating that they have
no objections to the Report-Recommendation, the Court finds that the proposed settlement
“represents a fair and reasonable resolution” of their dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. § 210, et seq. Peralta v. Allied Contracting II Corp., No. 09-CV-953, 2011 WL 3625501, at
*1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2011); see also Bouzzi v. F & J Pine Rest., LLC, No. 10-CV-0457, 2012 WL
85137, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2012); Misiewicz v. D’Onofrio Gen. Contractors Corp., No. 08CV-4377, 2010 WL 2545472, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 18, 2010); Leung v. Home Boy Rest. Inc., No.
07 Civ. 8779, 2009 WL 398861, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2009).
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 27) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Stipulation of settlement (Dkt. No. 25), and all of its terms, is
APPROVED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

February 02, 2012
Albany, New York

2