Figueroa v. Prospect Billiards Corp. et al

Filing 93

ORDER: Adopting REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: for 90 Report and Recommendation. Because review of the report reveals no clear error, the Court adopts the report in full, grants Plaintiff's motion to enforce the purported settlement agreement, a nd denies Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs. No later than August 1, 2019, Plaintiff must submit a proposed order for disposing of this case in light of the Court's order enforcing the parties'settlement. The Report and Recommendation having given the parties adequate warning, see Dkt. 90 (R&R) at 11, the parties' failure to file written objections to the report precludes appellate review of this decision. See Caidor v. Onondaga Cty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at Dkt. 72. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 7/29/2019) (ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------ X
JENNIFER FIGUEROA,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
PROSPECT BILLIARDS CORP., individually :
and d/b/a PROSPECT BILLIARDS CAFÉ;
:
ANDRES JIMENEZ,
:
:
Defendants. :
------------------------------------------------------------ X
VALERIE CAPRONI, District Judge:

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
7/29/2019
DATE FILED:
18-CV-2144 (VEC)
ORDER

Plaintiff Jennifer Figueroa sued her former employer, Prospect Billiards Corp.
(“Prospect”), and its principal, Andres Jimenez, for violation of federal, state, and local
employment-discrimination and wage-and-hour laws. 1 See Dkt. 7 (Am. Compl.). On May 15,
2019, Plaintiff filed a motion (a) to enforce a purported agreement between her and Defendants
Prospect and Jimenez to settle this case and (b) for attorney’s fees and costs associated with the
motion. See Dkts. 72-74. The next day, this Court referred Plaintiff’s motion to Magistrate
Judge Katharine H. Parker for the preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). See Dkt. 75. On July 12, 2019, Judge Parker recommended that Plaintiff’s
motion to enforce the purported settlement agreement be granted and that Plaintiff’s motion for
attorney’s fees and costs be denied. See Dkt. 90 (R&R). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), the
parties’ deadline to object to Judge Parker’s report was July 26, 2019. As of the date of this
order, no objection has been received from either party.
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court “may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
1

Another Defendant, Michael Martin, was voluntarily dismissed pursuant to a stipulation filed on July 1,
2019. See Dkt. 89.

Page 1 of 2

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When specific objections are made, “[t]he district judge must determine
de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also, e.g., United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997).
“Where no timely objection has been made by either party, a district court need only find that
there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the Report and
Recommendation.” Phillips v. Reed Grp., Ltd., 955 F. Supp. 2d 201, 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Neither party has objected to the Report and
Recommendation, so the Court reviews it for clear error. The Court finds none.
CONCLUSION
Because review of the report reveals no clear error, the Court adopts the report in full,
grants Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the purported settlement agreement, and denies Plaintiff’s
motion for attorney’s fees and costs. No later than August 1, 2019, Plaintiff must submit a
proposed order for disposing of this case in light of the Court’s order enforcing the parties’
settlement.
The Report and Recommendation having given the parties adequate warning, see Dkt. 90
(R&R) at 11, the parties’ failure to file written objections to the report precludes appellate review
of this decision. See Caidor v. Onondaga Cty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at Dkt. 72.

SO ORDERED.
Date: July 29, 2019
New York, New York

_________________________________
VALERIE CAPRONI
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2