PASTER STATES DISTRICT COURT rN Fi Ei D ener □□ □□□ YOR Caste meh □□ EDUARDO MALDONADO LOPEZ, on behalf of : * AUS 20 2019 himself and all others similarly situated, BROOKLY, Plaintiff, : ORDER LYN OFFICE -against- 15-CV-593 (ENV) (RER) □

JOHN SCHMIDT, ROSE SCHMIDT, : □ WHEATFIELD DISTRIBUTORS LLC, and ROBERT VOGLER, : □ Defendants. :

VITALIANO, D.J. Plaintiff Eduardo Maldonado Lopez filed this action, on February 6, 2015, against □ defendants Robert Vogler, John Schmidt, Rose Schmidt, and Wheatfield Distributors LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”),

et seq. Following □

the entry of default against Vogler, and a subsequent Court order setting a deadline for plaintiff to move for default judgment against him, Vogler filed a letter motion to dismiss “on the grounds that the Judge failed to answer [his] question of legal authority” under FLSA. See Apr. 25, 2019

Order; Dkt. 93. Upon referral of the motion, Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) on July 31, 2019. See Dkt. 96. As explained in the R&R, the “question” at issue was Vogler’s prior inquiry regarding whether FLSA applied to this action—a question that had been raised in the posture of a prior □ motion to dismiss, which was denied. See R&R at 2-4. The R&R notes that “Vogler did recei | e an answer to his motion, albeit one that he did not like. The answer was that at the stage of the |

proceedings in which Vogler asked his ‘question,’ the case would have to proceed through

1

discovery.” Jd. at 4 (emphasis in original). Judge Reyes thus recommends denial of the instant motion, which simply seeks to relitigate issues already resolved on Vogler’s prior motion, and □ ‘| lacking in substantive merit. Jd. at 4-6. Notice of time to object to the R&R was given, but no | party has objected within the time to do so. /d. at 6-7; Aug. 2, 2019 Aff. of Service, Dkt. 98. Discussion Where no party has objected to a report and recommendation, clear-error review applies, See Dafeng Hengwei Textile Co. v. Aceco Indus. & Commercial Corp.,

(E.D.N.Y. 2014). Having carefully reviewed the R&R in accordance with this standard, the ! Court finds it to be correct, well-reasoned, and free of any clear error. The Court, therefore, □ adopts the R&R, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the R&R is adopted in its entirety as the opinion of the Court and the letter motion to dismiss is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to pro se defendant Vogler. The parties are referred to Magistrate Judge Reyes for continued pretrial management. □ So Ordered. :

Dated: Brooklyn, New York August 19, 2019

/s/ USDJ ERIC N. VITALIANO

United States District Judge

> □