Melendez-Melendez et al v. Agencia Estatal Para El Manejo de Emergencias Y Administracion de Desastres (AEMEAD) et al

Filing 120

***SELECTED PARTIES***ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 116 Report and Recommendation, 85 Motion Submitting filed. After careful examination of the record and the unopposed R & R, the court hereby ADOPTS the R & R in full. As a result, plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 85) is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Aida M. Delgado-Colon on 3/26/2012.(wm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
EVELYN MELÉNDEZ-MELÉNDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil No. 06-2067 (ADC)

AGENCIA ESTATAL PARA EL
MANEJO DE EMERGENCIAS Y
ADMINISTRACIÓN DE DESASTRES
(AEMEAD), et al.,
Defendants.
SEALED ORDER
The captioned complaint was settled on April 15, 20009. ECF No. 71. The court
approved the settlement and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. ECF Nos. 72, 73.
Notwithstanding, two years later, plaintiff filed a motion alleging that defendant Agencia
Estatal para el Manejo de Emergencias (“AEMEAD”) had breached the settlement agreement
by failing to evaluate plaintiff Evelyn Meléndez (“plaintiff”) within thirty days of the
notification of judgment, in accordance with the fifth clause of the settlement agreement. ECF
No. 85. On May 9, 2011, the court ordered defendant to show cause as to plaintiff’s
allegations that it failed to comply with the fifth clause of the settlement agreement and
referred the dispute to Magistrate-Judge Marcos López (“Magistrate-Judge”). ECF No. 86.
AEMEAD responded by stating that defendant had fully complied with the settlement
agreement; that Meléndez had signed her performance appraisal within the stipulated
timeframe; and that she had requested and obtained a special assignment (“destaque”). ECF
Nos. 90. 95. 96.
On May 27, 2011, the Magistrate-Judge held a hearing regarding compliance with the
settlement agreement, specifically clause five of the same. ECF No. 99. On March 6, 2012, the
Magistrate-Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) which recommended the
denial of plaintiff’s motion, finding that AEMEAD had complied with the terms of the
settlement agreement. ECF No. 116. Objections to the R & R were due on March 23, 2012.

Civil No. 06-2067 (ADC)

Page 2

Id. However, plaintiff did not object or otherwise oppose the R & R and the time to do so has
expired.
I.

Standard of Review for an Unopposed Report and Recommendation
A district court may refer pending motions to a magistrate-judge for a report and

recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Loc. Cv. R. 72(a). Any
party adversely affected by the recommendation issued may file written objections within ten
(10) days of being served with the report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A
party that files a timely objection is entitled to a de novo determination of “those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which specific objection is
made.” Sylva v. Culebra Dive Shop, 389 F. Supp. 2d 189, 191-92 (D.P.R. 2005) (citing United
States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980)).
“Absent objection, ... [a] district court ha[s] a right to assume that [the affected party]
agree[s] to the magistrate’s recommendation.” López- Mulero v. Valez-Colón, 490 F. Supp. 2d
214, 217 -218 (D.P.R. 2007) (citing Templeman v. Chris Craft Corp., 770 F.2d 245, 247 (1st Cir.
1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1021 (1985)). Moreover, in conducting its review of an unopposed
R & R, the court “needs only [to] satisfy itself by ascertaining that there is no ‘plain error’ on
the face of the record.” López-Mulero, 490 F. Supp. 2d at 218.
II.

Conclusion
After careful examination of the record and the unopposed R & R, the court hereby

ADOPTS the R & R in full. As a result, plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 85) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
At San Juan, Puerto Rico, on this 26th day of March, 2012.

S/AIDA M. DELGADO-COLÓN
Chief United States District Judge