Brian Blankenship v. T.D. Ameritrade, Inc.

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court ADOPTS the 13 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge VanDervort; GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 3 Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion to Refer to arbitration filed by T.D. Ameritrade, Inc. Specifically, the court DENIES defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss and refer to arbitration. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 2/18/2014. (cc: Plaintiff, pro se and counsel of record) (mjp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD

BRIAN BLANKENSHIP,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No: 1:13-8048

T.D. AMERITRADE, INC.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, this action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of
findings and recommendations regarding disposition, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted

his Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) to the court
on January 28, 2014, in which he recommended that the district
court grant in part and deny in part defendant’s motion to
dismiss, or in the alternative, motion to refer to arbitration
(Doc. No. 3).

Specifically, the magistrate judge recommended

that defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) be
denied and defendant’s motion to dismiss and refer to
arbitration be granted.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
1 

the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing
days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge
VanDervort’s PF&R.

The failure of any party to file such

objections constitutes a waiver of such party’s right to a de
novo review by this court.

Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363

(4th Cir. 1989).
The parties failed to file any objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s PF&R within the seventeen-day period.

Having reviewed

the PF&R filed by Magistrate Judge VanDervort, the court adopts
the findings and recommendation contained therein.
Accordingly, the court adopts the factual and legal
analysis contained within the PF&R, GRANTS in part and DENIES in
part defendant’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative,
motion to refer to arbitration (Doc. No. 3).

Specifically, the

court DENIES defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) and GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss and refer to
arbitration.
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to plaintiff, pro se, and counsel of record.

2 

The Clerk is further directed to remove this case from the
court’s active docket.
It is SO ORDERED this 18th day of February, 2014.
ENTER: 

David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3