Savarese v. J.P. Morgan Chase et al, No. 2:2016cv00321 - Document 24 (E.D.N.Y. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, and having reviewed the R&R de novo,the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the well-reasoned and thorough R&R and grants defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay this action. Case stayed. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 12/7/2016. (Bollbach, Jean)

Download PDF
Savarese v. J.P. Morgan Chase et al Doc. 24 ,.. ,... ....... ...., U.S-' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------X JOHN SAVARESE, * DEC 07 2016 LONG iSLAND OFFICE Plaintiff, -against- ORDER 16-CV-321 (JFB) (SIL) J.P. MORGAN CHASE, ET AL., Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------------X JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge: Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") from Magistrate Judge Locke recommending that defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay this action be granted. The R&R instructed that any objections to the R&R be submitted within fourteen (14) days of service of the R&R. (See R&R, dated November 16,2016, at 19.) The date for filing any objections has since expired, and none of the parties has filed any objection to the R&R. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the thorough and well-reasoned R&R. Where there are no objections, the Court may adopt the report and recommendation without de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, ISO ( 1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."); see also Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate's decision."); cf 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (requiring de novo review after objections). However, because the failure to file timely objections is not jurisdictional, a district judge may still excuse the failure to object in a timely manner and exercise its discretion to decide the case on the merits to, for example, prevent plain error. See Cephas v. Nash, Dockets.Justia.com 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003) ("[B]ecause the waiver rule is non jurisdictional, we 'may excuse the default in the interests of justice."' (quoting Thomas, 474 U.S. at 155)). Although all parties have waived any objection to the R&R and thus de novo review is not required, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R in an abundance of caution. Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, and having reviewed the R&R de novo, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the well-reasoned and thorough R&R and grants defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay this action . ..co nriDERED. ire:: States Districf':ftldge v.1ted r. u•auw Dated: December 7, 2016 Central Islip, New York 2 '-.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.