Shavis v. Pay-O-Matic Check Cashing Corp.
Shavis v. Pay-O-Matic Check Cashing Corp.
Trial Court Opinion
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 0S URTEDNY. EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK enone □□□ cnnee □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ *& OCT -4209 * D’ASIA SHAVIS, BROOKLYN OFFICE Plaintiff, NOT FOR PUBLICATION -against- ORDER 19-CV-00484 (CBA) (LB) PAY-O-MATIC CHECK CASHING CORP. And THE PAY-O-MATIC CORP., Defendants. en et er nese ner nn nw en een seen enn X AMON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff D’ Asia Shavis brought this action against defendants Pay-O-Matic Check Cashing Corp. and The Pay-O-Matic Corp. (“Defendants”) alleging that they violated her rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law (““NYLL”) by requiring her to work for more than forty hours per week without paying her adequate overtime compensation. Shavis also asserts claims under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law as a result of Defendants’ alleged discrimination against her based on her pregnancy and pregnancy-related leave. (D.E. # 1 at ff 1- 2.) Shavis’s counsel filed the parties’ motion for settlement approval on June 28, 2019. (D.E. # 27.) The Court referred this motion to the Honorable Lois Bloom., for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (D.E. dated 7/19/2019.) Magistrate Judge Bloom issued a thorough and well-reasoned R&R recommending that the Court grant the parties’ motion for settlement approval. (D.E. # 31.) No party has objected to the R&R, and the time for doing so has passed. When deciding whether to adopt a report and recommendation, a district 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)(1). To accept those portions of the R&R to which no timely objection has been made, “a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Jarvis N. Am. Globex Fund, L.P.,
823 F. Supp. 2d 161, 163(E.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear error, adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, the Court grants the parties’ motion for settlement approval. SO ORDERED.
Dated: October J, 2019 Brooklyn, New York s/Carol Bagley Amon “Carol Bagldy Amof ) / United States Distri¢t Judge
2 .
Reference
- Status
- Unknown