KOZIERACHI v. SOLIS

Filing 38

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF JUDGE LYNNE A. SITARSKI [#37] IS ADOPTED. THE COURT'S 3/13/13 ORDER, [#25] DISMISSING THIS CASE IS VACATED. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT [#27] IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF'S MO TION TO VACATE THE ORDER DISMISSING CASE [#28] IS DENIED AS MOOT. FINALLY, THE CAPTION IN THIS MATTER SHALL BE AMENDED AND THOMAS E. PEREZ SUBSTITUTED FOR HILDA SOLIS AS DEFENDANT. FINALLY, THIS CASE IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK IT CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE C. DARNELL JONES, II ON 4/7/14. 4/8/14 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SIGMUND KOZIERACHI,

Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.:

v.
THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

2:10-CV-7570-CDJ

FILED
APR 0 7 2014

Defendant.
ORDER

f£!CHAEL E. KUNZ Clerk
Oep. Cletk

wi-

AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation of Judge Lynne A. Sitarski, (Doc. No. 37), is ADOPTED. 1 The Court's March 13,
2013, Order, (Doc. No. 25), dismissing this case is VACATED. Defendant's Motion to Enforce
Settlement Agreement, (Doc. No. 27), is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate Order Dismissing
Case, (Doc. No. 28), is DENIED AS MOOT. Finally, the caption in this matter shall be AMENDED
and Thomas E. Perez SUBSTITUTED for Hilda Solis as Defendant. 2 Finally, this case is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE, and the clerk of court shall mark it CLOSED for statistical purposes.

ENTERED
AP~

oa2ru4

CLERK OF COURT

1

When timely objections are filed to the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the
district court must review de nova those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections
are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(l). Ifthere are no objections to the report and recommendation or when
reviewing those portions ofthe report and recommendation to which no objections are directed, the court
should, as a matter of good practice, "satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also
Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). In this case, plaintiff has not filed any
objections to the Report and Recommendation.
2

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d).