UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

JOHN HAAF,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:22-cv-147-MMH-JBT

WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 23; Report) entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 1, 2022. In the Report, Judge Barksdale recommends that the Court approve the settlement as a fair and reasonable resolution of the disputed issues; direct the parties to confer regarding reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and direct the parties to either file a motion for a stipulated judgment or a joint notice by December 16, 2022. See Report at 2. For the reasons set forth in the Report, awaiting the 14-day objection period to expire is unnecessary. See id. The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b). Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been

properly objected to.” See Rule 72(b)(3); see also

(b)(1). However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1. As such, the Court reviews those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection

was filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See id.; see also Thomas v. Arn,

(1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge’s] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when

neither party objects to those findings.”); Dupree v. Warden,

(11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become 11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or

not.”). Upon review of the record, the undersigned concludes that the settlement represents a “reasonable and fair” resolution of Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the Court will accept and adopt the Report.

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 23) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 2. The parties’ settlement is APPROVED as a fair and reasonable resolution of the disputed issues. 3. The parties shall confer in good faith on reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 4, By December 16, 2022, the parties shall either file a motion for entry of a stipulated judgment on reasonable attorney’s fees and costs or a joint notice explaining what discrete issues on reasonableness remain for the Court’s determination and proposing a briefing schedule on those issues. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 2nd day of November, 2022.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD United States District Judge

ja Copies to: Counsel of Record