*

 The Honorable Jane A. Restani, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting

by designation.

** The Clerk of Court is instructed to amend the official caption as set forth above.

1

10-2612-cv

Deborah Wilson v. General Mills, Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed

on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with

this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the

notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party

not represented by counsel.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York,

on the 25th day of May, two thousand eleven.

PRESENT:

JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

REENA RAGGI,

Circuit Judges,

JANE A. RESTANI,

Judge.*

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DEBORAH WILSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 10-2612-cv

GENERAL MILLS, INC.,

Defendant-Consolidated-Defendant-Appellee.**

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: CHARLES MILLER II (Lindy Korn, of counsel),

Buffalo, NY.
2

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: DAVID L. CHRISTLIEB (Keith C. Hult, of

counsel), Littler Mendelson, Chicago, IL. 

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New

York (William M. Skretny, Judge).

UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED and the

parties are ORDERED to comply with their settlement agreement.

Plaintiff-appellant Deborah Wilson (“plaintiff” or “Wilson”) appeals from a June 2, 2010

order of the District Court granting the motion of defendant-appellee General Mills, Inc. to enforce

a settlement agreement (“the Agreement”) between the parties. The Agreement was the result of a

lawsuit brought by plaintiff, alleging sexual and racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and New York State

Human Rights Law, Executive Law § 290. The Agreement provided, inter alia, that plaintiff would

release General Mills and any of its subsidiaries or other related bodies from any claims arising from

this matter in any federal or state judicial or administrative body. We assume the parties’ familiarity

with the facts and procedural history of this case and the issues raised on appeal.

In its June 2, 2010 order, Wilson v. General Mills, 08-cv-00597 (W.D.N.Y. June 2, 2010),

following de novo review, the District Court adopted the Report and Recommendation

(“R & R”) of Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy, see Report and Recommendation, 08-cv-00597

(S)(M) (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2010), and Judge Skretny rejected plaintiff’s subsequent objections to the

R&R.

We review a District Court’s decision to deny a motion to reinstate a case to the court

calendar following settlement for abuse of discretion. See Powell v. Omnicom, BBDO/PHD, 497 F.3d

124, 128 (2d Cir. 2007); cf. Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (“A district court has abused

its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous

assessment of the evidence, or rendered a decision that cannot be located within the range of

permissible decisions.” (alteration, citations, and quotation marks omitted)). We review the factual

finding that a settlement agreement exists, and that parties assented to that agreement, for clear

error. Powell, 497 F.3d at 128. “[A] finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to

support it, the reviewing court . . . is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has

been committed.” Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (quotation marks omitted).
3

In his careful and well-reasoned R & R, the Magistrate Judge explained that, based on the

totality of the record before the District Court, plaintiff had consented, on the record, to the

Agreement and that any alleged dissatisfaction with her counsel could not void the Agreement. For

substantially the reasons stated by Magistrate Judge McCarthy in his R & R of February 18, 2010, we

affirm the judgment of the District Court with respect to all claims, and we now enter judgment

enforcing the Agreement.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED, judgment

is entered for defendant, and the parties are ORDERED to comply with the settlement agreement

in any forum that is contemplated by its terms.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

FOR THE COURT,

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court