Naraine v. Washdry Tech Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SHANKAR NARAINE, Plaintiff, ORDER 23-cv-07162 (NCM) (JAM) – against – WASHDRY TECH INC. and OMRAJ RAM DOODNAUTH, Defendants.

NATASHA C. MERLE, United States District Judge: This Court has received the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on the instant case dated August 15, 2024, from the Honorable Joseph A. Marutollo, United States Magistrate Judge. No objections have been filed.1 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)(3); see also Park v. Kim, No. 20-cv- 02636, 2022 WL 3643966, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2022), aff’d, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. On August 26, 2024, defendant Doodnauth filed a request for “modification of the [s]ettlement [a]greement” reached by the parties. See Modification of Settlement Agreement 1, ECF No. 34 (the “Modification Request”). Defendant Doodnauth requested that, instead of beginning settlement payments within five days of the Court’s approval of the settlement agreement, he be allowed to wait “twelve (12) months from the signing of the [s]ettlement [a]greement” to begin making payments. Modification Req. 1; see also Settlement Agreement 1, ECF No. 25-1. However, at an August 30 status conference, defendant Doodnauth agreed to withdraw this motion and, accordingly, Judge Marutollo denied the Modification Request as moot. See Aug. 30, 2024 ECF Min. Entry. On September 5, 2024, Judge Marutollo denied another motion that was identical to the Modification Request—except that this time it was dated August 30, 2024—on the basis that it was also mooted by defendant’s representation at the August 30 status conference.

See Sept. 5, 2024 Min. Entry. Because defendant Doodnauth withdrew the Modification Request, which was twice denied as moot, the Court does not consider defendant to have objected to the R&R. 2024). 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-00371, 2017 WL 4838764, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2017) (quoting Est. of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imps. Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)).

Having reviewed the record, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court fully adopts Judge Marutollo’s R&R and APPROVES the proposed settlement as a fair and reasonable compromise of plaintiff’s claims under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015).

SO ORDERED.

_/s/ Natasha C. Merle____ NATASHA C. MERLE United States District Judge Dated: September 19, 2024 Brooklyn, New York