Jack v. All-Rite Paving Contractors, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 0:24-cv-61261-LEIBOWITZ/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH

SHELDON PETER JACK and LEWIS WARE, Plaintiffs, v. ALL-RITE PAVING CONTRACTORS, INC., , Defendants. ________________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin- Birch’s Report and Recommendation on the parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Settlement of FLSA Claims [ECF No. 48]. [ECF No. 52 (the “R&R”)]. Judge Augustin-Birch recommends granting the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement of FLSA Claims [ECF No. 48] and dismissing this case with prejudice. [ECF No. 52 at 1]. The parties did not file any objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed. After careful review of the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Augustin-Birch’s R&R in its entirety.

“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort, 208 PF. App’x at 783-84 (cleaned up). ‘To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up).

The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge Augustin-Birch’s R&R, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Augustin-Birch’s R&R is thorough, cogent, and compelling. The Court adopts the R&R in its entirety.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch’s R&R [ECF No. 52] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.

2. ‘The Joint Motion to Approve Settlement of FLSA Claims [ECF No. 48] is GRANTED.

3. ‘This action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

4. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.

5. The Clerk of Court directed to CLOSE this case.

6. Any pending motions are DENIED as moot, and any pending deadlines are TERMINATED.

DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on August 25, 2025. onl lin oe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record