Encalada et al v. Senator Construction Corporation et al
Filing
39
OPINION AND ORDER re: 35 MOTION for Settlement . filed by Luis Chimbay, Luis Encalada, Juan Pablo Encalada Flores. The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Lehrburger's thorough and well-reasoned Report and finds no error, clear or otherwise. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety. The parties' settlement agreement is APPROVED. The parties' failure to file written objections precludes appellate review of this decision. See PSG Poker, LLC v. DeRosa -Grund, No. 06 CIV. 1104(DLC), 2008 WL 3852051, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2008) (citing United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997)). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 35, and to close the case. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/20/2019) (kv)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LUIS ENCALADA, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, JUAN
PABLO ENCALADA FLORES,
individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, LUIS CHIMBAY,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
OPINION AND ORDER
SENATOR CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION, d/b/a Senator
Construction Group, Inc., SENATOR
CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC., dlbla
Senator Construction Group, Inc., HAROON
CONTRACTING GROUP INC., dlb/a
Senator Construction Group, Inc., USMAN
MUHAMMAD, ATIF RAFIQ, a/k/a ATIQ
REHMAN,
18 Civ. 03727 (ER) (RWL)
Defendants.
Ramos, D.J.:
Plaintiffs bring this action against their former employer for violations of the Federal
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Doc. 1. On April 26, 2019, the parties
submitted a motion for settlement. Doc. 35. On April 29, 2019, Magistrate Judge Robert W.
Lehrburger issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending approval of the
proposed settlement. No objections were subsequently filed.
I.
Standard of Review
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation "may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). Parties may raise "specific," "written" objections to the
report and recommendation "[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy." Id.; see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A district court reviews de nova those portions of the report and
recommendation to which timely and specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C);
see also DeLeon v. Strack, 234 F.3d 84, 87 (2d Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Male Juvenile
(95-CR-1074), 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997)). The district court may adopt those parts of the
report and recommendation to which no party has timely objected, provided no clear error is
apparent :from the face of the record. Lewis v. Zan, 573 F. Supp. 2d 804, 811 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
II.
Discussion
The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Lehrburger's thorough and well-reasoned Report
and finds no error, clear or otherwise. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety.
The parties' settlement agreement is APPROVED.
The parties' failure to file written objections precludes appellate review of this decision.
See PSG Poker, LLC v. DeRosa-Grund, No. 06 CIV. 1104(DLC), 2008 WL 3852051, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2008) (citing United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997)).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 35, and to close
the case.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 20, 2019
New York, New York
Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J.
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?