Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 29, 2024

Bevel v. Mennella's Poultry Co., Inc.

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:23-cv-05678
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Bevel v. Mennella’s Poultry, Judge Rochon adopted an unopposed recommendation approving the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and ordered the case closed.

Who this affects

Royce Bevel and Mennella’s Poultry Co., Inc.; the court-approved settlement resolved the case, but the opinion does not state its terms.

What happened

In Bevel v. Mennella’s Poultry Co., Inc., a Fair Labor Standards Act case, a magistrate judge recommended approving the parties’ settlement.

Neither party objected to the recommendation within the required 14-day period. The district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon adopted the recommendation in full, directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions, and ordered the case closed. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Bevel v. Mennella's Poultry Co., Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05678
Judge
Rochon
Date
Mar. 29, 2024

Background

Royce Bevel brought this Fair Labor Standards Act action against Mennella’s Poultry Co., Inc. The parties reached a settlement, and Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave issued a March 1, 2024 Report and Recommendation recommending that the settlement be approved.

Review of the Recommendation

The parties had 14 days to submit written objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). No objections were filed. Because the recommendation was uncontested, the district court reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon adopted Judge Cave’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions pending at ECF Nos. 23 and 24 and to close the case. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.