Savarese v. J.P. Morgan Chase et al

Filing 24

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)

,..

,...

....... ....,

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,

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

'-.