United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS ,
ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION  TO ENFORCE AND
APPROVE SETTLEMENT, APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT, DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION  TO PROCEED WITH TRIAL, AND
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation  of United
States Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson, entered in this
case on November 16, 2018. Plaintiff Kimberly Edwards has
filed Objections  to the Report and Recommendation, along
with a Motion  to Proceed with Trial. Also before the
Court is Defendant Minact Logistical Services' Motion
 to Enforce and Approve Settlement. After due
consideration of the Report and Recommendation , the
parties' Motions  , Plaintiff's Objections
, the record, and relevant legal authority, the Court
finds that Plaintiff's Objections  should be
overruled, the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation should be adopted as the Order of this Court,
Defendant's Motion  should be granted, the settlement
should be enforced, and Plaintiff's Motion  should be
denied. This civil action should be dismissed with prejudice.
Kimberly Edwards (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro se
Complaint in this Court on November 15, 2017, alleging that
Defendant Minact Logistical Services, LLC
(“Defendant”), discriminated and retaliated
against her, withheld overtime wages, denied her sick leave,
and violated her privacy. See Compl. . Defendant
filed a Motion  to Dismiss, and the Court ultimately
dismissed all of Plaintiff's claims except for her claim
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201,
et seq., that she was denied overtime. Order  at
5-7. The Court determined that Plaintiff failed to state a
claim that she was denied sick leave under the Family Medical
Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et
seq., id. at 10-11, and that her claims for
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-2, et seq., of the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621,
et seq., and for invasion of privacy under state
law, were time-barred by the applicable statutes of
limitations. Id. at 11-12.
during an August 20, 2018, settlement conference before the
Magistrate Judge, the case settled. Minute Entry, August 20,
2018. Four days later Plaintiff filed what she entitled a
“Motion to Proceed with Trial.” Pl.'s Mot.
. In it, Plaintiff reasserted the facts and claims of her
Complaint , including those which the Court had previously
dismissed. Defendant filed its Response  in Opposition on
September 7, 2018, and argued that Plaintiff's Motion
should be denied because it contravened the settlement
reached by the parties. Def.'s Resp.  at 2. Defendant
also contended that to the extent Plaintiff's Motion
could be construed as a motion for reconsideration, it should
be denied because Plaintiff had neither established that the
Court's Order  was erroneous nor had she offered any
newly-discovered evidence. Id. at 2-3.
September 12, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion  to Enforce
and Approve Settlement and included its proposed Settlement
and Release as an exhibit. Exhibit C [16-3]. To date,
Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendant's Motion
. Because the Magistrate Judge was in the best position
to evaluate in the first instance whether the settlement
should be enforced, the Court referred Defendant's Motion
 to the Magistrate Judge for resolution. Order . The
Magistrate Judge scheduled a hearing on both pending Motions
 . Notice of Setting, Oct. 18, 2018. Although notice
was mailed to Plaintiff at her address of record, she did not
appear for the hearing. Minute Entry, Oct. 31, 2018.
November 16, 2018, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and
Recommendation , which was mailed to Plaintiff at her
address of record. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the
Court grant Defendant's Motion  to Enforce and
Approve Settlement and deny Plaintiff's Motion  to
Proceed with Trial. R. & R.  at 4. Edwards submitted
written Objections  on December 4, 2018, indicating that
she would like to “move forward with the court.”
Pl.'s Obj.  at 7 (all-caps removed). Edwards spends
the remainder of her Objections  arguing the merits of
her remaining FLSA claim and of the claims previously
dismissed by this Court. Id. at 2-8. Defendant filed
a Response  to Edwards' Objections  arguing that
Edwards' objections are improper, insufficient to warrant
de novo review, and lack merit.
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 
should be adopted.
Relevant legal standards
no party has objected to a magistrate judge's proposed
findings of fact and recommendation, the Court need not
conduct a de novo review of it. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(“[A] judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is
made.”). In such cases, the Court applies the
“clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to
law” standard of review. United States v.
Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
where a party submits written objections, the Court
“make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
“Such review means that this Court will examine the
entire record and will make an independent assessment of the
law.” Lambert v. Denmark, Civil No.
2:12-cv-74-KS-MTP, 2013 WL 786356, *1 (S.D.Miss. Mar. 1,
2013); see Goodman v. United States, 518 F.2d 505,
509 (5th Cir. 1975) (citing United States v. First City
Nat'l Bank, 386 U.S. 361, 368 (1967)). In conducting
a de novo review, the Court is not “required to
reiterate the findings and conclusions of the magistrate
judge.” Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40
(5th Cir. 1993).
objection to the Report and Recommendation 
appears to be her general desire to pursue her case and thus
to “move forward with the court.” Pl.'s Obj.
 at 7 (all-caps removed). Plaintiff does not object to a
single particular finding of fact or conclusion of law made
in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
See Id. Because Edwards fails to raise any specific
objection to any portion of the Report and Recommendation
, the Court need not conduct a de novo review,
see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and need only review
under the “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and
contrary to law” standard of review, Wilson,
864 F.2d at 1221. After conducting ...