Jaludi v. Citigroup

Filing 83

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS denying 77 Motion to Reopen Case; adopting 82 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 2/12/24. (dj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ABDUL A. JALUDI,
Plaintiff

:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-2076

v.

:

(JUDGE MANNION)

CITIGROUP,

:
Defendants

:
ORDER

Pending before the court is the report of United States Magistrate
Judge Martin C. Carlson which recommends that the plaintiff’s motion to
reopen be denied. (Doc. 82). No objections have been filed to Judge
Carlson’s report. Upon review, the report and recommendation will be
adopted in its entirety as the opinion of the court.
Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, the court
should, as a matter of good practice, satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co.
v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa. 2010) (citing
Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining judges
should give some review to every report and recommendation)).

Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not, the district court
may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1);
Local Rule 72.31.
The background of the instant action has been set forth by Judge
Carlson in his report. Suffice it to say that this court previously found, among
other things, that the plaintiff must proceed to arbitration on his civil RICO
claims against the defendant. That decision was later upheld by the Third
Circuit on appeal. Rather than initiate arbitration proceedings as directed,
some eight years after this court directed him to proceed to arbitration and
more than four years after the Third Circuit affirmed this court’s decision, the
plaintiff filed the instant motion to reopen his case arguing that the
defendants waived their right to arbitration. (Doc. 77).
Upon review, Judge Carlson found that the plaintiff’s motion to reopen
is untimely under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60. Moreover, aside from its untimeliness,
Judge Carlson found that the motion is without merit. Thus, Judge Carlson
recommends that the motion be denied.
Neither party has filed objections to Judge Carlson’s report. The court
has reviewed the record and Judge Carlson’s report and finds no clear error.
Moreover, the court agrees with the sound reasoning which led Judge
-2-

Carlson to his conclusions. Therefore, the court will adopt the report and
recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the court.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) The report and recommendation of Judge Carlson (Doc. 82) is
ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
(2) The plaintiff’s motion to reopen (Doc. 77) is DENIED.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion

MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATE: February 12, 2024
15-2076-03

-3-