MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

v. : ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

MAINFREIGHT, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

IT APPEARING THAT:

(1) The Court, by order dated December 16, 2013 [ECF No. 79], required

opt-in plaintiffs Rebecca Hagler and Lisa Hall to appear in person

before Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on December 30, 2013,

for a hearing on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw from

representing them, to determine whether Ms. Hagler and Ms. Hall

intended to continue to prosecute their claims; and that

(2) The Court made clear that a failure to appear for the December 30,

2013 would result in the issuance of an order to show cause why Ms.

Hagler’s and Ms. Hall’s claims should not be dismissed for a failure to

prosecute, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; and that

(3) Ms. Hagler and Ms. Hall failed to appear for the December 30, 2013

hearing despite being duly notified [ECF No. 80, 81]; and that

(4) The Court, on December 31, 2013, ordered Ms. Hagler and Ms. Hall to

submit, by January 30, 2014, a letter showing cause why their claims

in this matter should not be dismissed as a result of their failure to

prosecute this action or comply with the December 16, 2013 order

[ECF No. 81], and that

(5) The Court advised Ms. Hagler and Ms. Hall that failure to respond to

the December 31, 2013 order by January 30, 2014 would result in the

issuance of a Report and Recommendation that the Undersigned
appeared to intend to prosecute her claims in this matter, despite

having been afforded numerous opportunities to express such an

intention, and that both appeared to have abandoned their claims, and

recommending that the undersigned dismiss the claims of opt-in

plaintiffs Ms. Hall and Ms. Hagler for failure to prosecute, in

accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and that

(7) No party filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation within

fourteen days after February 26, 2014, when it was filed and served.

See Local Civil Rule 72.1(c) (14-day deadline for objections); and that

(8) The District Judge reviews the Magistrate’s Report and

Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b)(3). “A judge of 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)(1); see also U.S. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667,

680 (1980) (stating that the district court judge has broad discretion in

accepting or rejecting the magistrate’s recommendation); and that

(9) If there are no objections, this Court has discretion to choose an

appropriate standard of review. See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 154

(1985) (federal statute neither prohibits nor requires a particular

standard if no objections are filed); Goriey v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d

Cir. 1984). At a minimum, “[wJhat is not objected to, the district court

reviews under the plain error or manifest injustice standard.”

Megaparts v. Highcom Security, No. 09-4052, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

63497, at *4 (D.N.J. June 25, 2010); see, e.g., Banks v. Gallagher, 686

F. Supp. 2d 499, 505 (M.D. Pa. 2009); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp.

375, 376—78 (M.D. Pa. 1998) (citing Advisory Committee notes on

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), implementing 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C)); and that

2
IT IS this 17th day of March, 2014,

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hammer’s Report and Recommendation

is adopted in full; and it is further

ORDERED that the claims of opt-in Plaintiffs Lisa Hall and Rebecca

Hagler are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

—JJ_*Ev—

HON. KEVIN MCNULTY 41United States District Judd

3