Murillo v. Golden Dolphin Restaurant Corp.

District Court, E.D. New York

Murillo v. Golden Dolphin Restaurant Corp.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

WENCESLAW MURILLO, 2:18-cv-07458 (ARR) (JO) Plaintiff, Opinion & Order — against — Not for electronic or print GOLDEN DOLPHIN RESTAURANT CORP. et al., publication

Defendants.

ROSS, United States District Judge: This Court has received the sua sponte Report and Recommendation on the instant case dated July 28, 2020, from the Honorable James Orenstein, United States Magistrate Judge. No objections have been filed. The Court reviews “de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also Brissett v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth., No. 09-CV-874 (CBA)(LB),

2011 WL 1930682

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2011), aff’d,

472 F. App’x 73

(2d Cir. 2012) (summary order). Where no timely objections have been filed, “the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Finley v. Trans Union, Experian, Equifax, No. 17-CV-0371 (LDH)(LB),

2017 WL 4838764

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2017) (quoting Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imports Ltd.,

812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189

(E.D.N.Y. 2011)). Having reviewed the record, I find no clear error. I therefore adopt the Report and Recommendation, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1). Accordingly, the motion for settlement approval pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.,

796 F.3d 199

(2d Cir. 2015), is granted, and the settlement is approved. SO ORDERED. _______/s/________________ Allyne R. Ross United States District Judge

Dated: August 12, 2020 Brooklyn, New York

Reference

Status
Unknown