Beattie v. Citrus Memorial Hospital, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

REBECCA BEATTIE, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 5:24-cv-301-MMH-PRL CITRUS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., d/b/a HCA Florida Citrus Hospital, Defendant.

O R D E R THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 42; Report) entered by the Honorable Philip Lammens, United States Magistrate Judge, on March 7, 2025. In the Report, Judge Lammens recommends that the Amended and Renewed Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Settlement and Dismissal of Action With Prejudice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Dkt. No. 41; Motion) be granted to the extent that the Court approve the FLSA Settlement Agreement; the case be dismissed with prejudice; and the request to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement be denied. See Report at 5. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed.

The Court “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).

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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.1 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, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (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, 715 F.3d 1295, 1304-05 (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.”).

1 The Magistrate Judge properly informed the parties of the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to do so. See Report at 1 n.1.

Upon review of the record, including the Report, Motion, and Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 41-1), the undersigned concludes that the settlement represents a “reasonable and fair’ resolution of Plaintiffs 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. 42) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

2. The Amended and Renewed Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA Settlement and Dismissal of Action With Prejudice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Dkt. No. 41) is GRANTED to the extent that the Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 41-1) is APPROVED.

3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

4, The request that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement is DENIED.

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines as moot and close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers this 25th day of March, 2025.

United States District Judge ja Copies to: Counsel of Record