Doerr et al v. Villa Vie Residences Corporation et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 0:25-cv-61311-LEIBOWITZ/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH
HOLGER MARK DOERR
, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
VILLA VIE RESIDENCES CORPORATION,
et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-
Birch’s Report and Recommendation on the parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of the Parties’ FLSA
Settlement Agreement and Dismissal with Prejudice [ECF No. 36]. [ECF No. 42 (the “R&R”)]. Judge
Augustin-Birch recommends granting the Joint Motion for Approval of the Parties’ FLSA Settlement
Agreement and Dismissal with Prejudice [ECF No. 36] and dismissing this case with prejudice. [ECF
No. 42 at 4]. The parties did not file any objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed.
After careful review of the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Augustin-
Birch’s R&R in its entirety.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must
file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and
recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc.,
208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting
legal authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the
specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the
Case 0:25-cv-61311-DSL Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2025 Page 1 of 2

2
report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783–84 (cleaned up). To
the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions are reviewed
for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up).
The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge Augustin-Birch’s R&R, and the time
to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error only. Upon this review,
the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Augustin-Birch’s R&R is thorough,
cogent, and compelling. The Court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. 	Magistrate 	Judge 	Augustin-Birch’s 	R&R 	[ECF 	No. 	42] 	is 	AFFIRMED 	AND
ADOPTED.
2. 	The Joint Motion for Approval of the Parties’ FLSA Settlement Agreement and Dismissal
with Prejudice [ECF No. 36] is GRANTED.
3. 	This action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
4. 	The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.
5. 	The
Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
6. 	Any 	pending 	motions 	are 	DENIED 	as 	moot, 	and 	any 	pending 	deadlines 	are
TERMINATED.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on December 31, 2025.
cc: 	counsel of record
Case 0:25-cv-61311-DSL Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2025 Page 2 of 2