Zean v. Comcast Broadband Security, et al

Filing 118

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AS MODIFIED. (See order for details) (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright on 12/17/2019. (RJE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Samuel Gaygbou Zean,

Case No. 17-cv-5117 (WMW/KMM)
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AS MODIFIED

v.
Comcast Broadband Security, LLC, and
Southwest Credit Systems, L.P.,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the September 20, 2019 Report and
Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez.
(Dkt. 115.) The R&R recommends denying Plaintiff Samuel Gaygbou Zean’s motions to
vacate an arbitration award issued in this matter on June 6, 2019. Zean filed timely
objections, but he fails to set forth a specific objection to any aspect of the R&R. He
maintains generally that “it is a waste of my pre[cious] time to repeatedly point to the facts
and evidence in this matter. I refused to play that game this time. . . . Accordingly, I walk
away the winner in this matter.”
Because Zean does not specifically object to any aspect of the R&R, the Court
reviews it for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (“When no
timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d
793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). A finding is “clearly erroneous” when the reviewing
court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

Edeh v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1043 (D. Minn. 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted). The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and finds no clear
error as to the R&R’s finding that Zean fails to present a valid basis for vacating the
arbitration award. The Court denies Zean’s motions to vacate.
The R&R also recommends affirming the arbitration award and dismissing this
action. Because no party has moved the Court for any such relief,1 however, the Court
declines to adopt these aspects of the R&R. See PVI, Inc. v. Ratiopharm GmbH, 135 F.3d
1252, 1253 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding that “the [Federal Arbitration Act] provides that a party
to an arbitration may apply to the court for confirmation of an arbitration award only ‘if
the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered
upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration’ ” (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 9)). Accordingly,
the Court adopts the R&R as modified herein.
ORDER
Based on the R&R and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff Samuel Gaygbou Zean’s objections to the September 20, 2019 R&R,
(Dkt. 116), are OVERRULED.

2.

The September 20, 2019 R&R, (Dkt. 115), is ADOPTED AS MODIFIED
herein.

1

In its June 19, 2019 “Status Report” letter, Defendant Comcast Broadband Security,
LLC, “requests that the Court dismiss this stayed action.” But no formal motion has been
filed seeking, or providing legal authority for, such relief.
2

3.

Plaintiff Samuel Gaygbou Zean’s motions to vacate the arbitration award,
(Dkts. 99, 100), are DENIED.

Dated: December 17, 2019

s/Wilhelmina M. Wright
Wilhelmina M. Wright
United States District Judge

3