Gibson v. M.T. Productions in Jacksonville, Inc.,, No. 3:2016cv00232 - Document 34 (M.D. Fla. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT adopting 32 Report and Recommendation; granting 31 Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 11/3/2016. (JW)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gibson v. M.T. Productions in Jacksonville, Inc., Doc. 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION CYNTHIA M. GIBSON, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 3:16-cv-232-J-34JRK M.T. PRODUCTIONS IN JACKSONVILLE, INC., d/b/a Thee Officers Club, Defendant. _____________________________________/ ORDER AND STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 32; Report), entered on October 27, 2016, recommending that the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement (Dkt. No. 31; Motion) be granted to the extent that the Court enter an Order and Stipulated Final Judgment approving the parties’ settlement agreement, and that this case be dismissed with prejudice. See Report at 4. On November 1, 2016, the parties filed a notice advising the Court that they do not have any objection to the Report. See Joint Stipulation of Non-Objection to Court’s Report and Recommendation Dated October 27, 2016 (Dkt. No. 33; Stipulation). The 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). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de Dockets.Justia.com novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007). The Court has conducted an independent examination of the record in this case and a de novo review of the legal conclusions. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (FLSA), seeking recovery of unpaid overtime compensation. See Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 24). Thereafter, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations, which resulted in a resolution of the issues and claims raised in this case. See Motion (Dkt. No. 31). Upon review of the record, including the Report, Motion, and settlement agreement, the undersigned concludes that the settlement represents a “reasonable and fair” resolution of Plaintiff’s FLSA claims. Accordingly, the Court will accept and adopt Judge Klindt’s Report. In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 32) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 2. The Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement (Dkt. No. 31) is GRANTED to the extent the Court enters this Order and Stipulated Final Judgment. 3. For purposes of satisfying the FLSA, the settlement agreement is APPROVED. 4. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. -2- 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any pending motions or deadlines as moot and close this file. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 3rd day of November, 2016. ja Copies to: Counsel of Record -3-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
