The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
LARRY TYGER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:21-cv-02284-JTF-cgc
)
BARCLAYS BANK, )
)
Defendant. )
)
_____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO GRANT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS
CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
_ _____________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is Defendant Barclay’s Bank Delaware (“Barclays”) Motion to Compel
Arbitration (“Motion”), filed on June 2, 2021. (ECF No. 15.) On June 15, 2021, the Motion was
referred to the Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation. (See ECF No. 23.) On October
25, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report, which recommended that Barclays’ Motion be
granted and the case be dismissed without prejudice. (See ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff did not file any
objections to the Report and the time to file such objections has passed. For the following reasons,
the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and finds that Barclays’
Motion should be GRANTED and the case DISMISSED with prejudice.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
This Court adopts and incorporates, the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact in
this case. (See ECF No. 30, 2-4.) As noted, Plaintiff failed to object to the Report and
Recommendation.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Congress passed 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) “to relieve some of the burden on the federal courts by
permitting the assignment of certain district court duties to magistrates.” United States v. Curtis,
237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001). Pursuant to the provision, magistrate judges may hear and
determine any pretrial matter pending before the Court, except various dispositive motions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Regarding those excepted dispositive motions, magistrate judges may still
hear and submit to the district court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Upon hearing a pending matter, “the magistrate judge must enter a
recommended disposition, including, if appropriate, proposed findings of fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(1); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). Any party who
disagrees with a magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendation may file written objections
to the report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
The standard of review that is applied by the district court depends on the nature of the
matter considered by the magistrate judge. See Baker, 67 F. App’x at 310 (citations omitted.)
Usually, a district court must review dispositive motions under the de novo standard. Upon review,
the district court may accept, reject, or modify the proposed findings or recommendations of the
magistrate judge. Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 47 F. Supp. 3d 665, 674 (W.D. Tenn. 2014); see also 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court “may also receive evidence or recommit the matter to the
[m]agistrate [j]udge with instructions.” Moses v. Gardner, No. 2:14-cv-2706-SHL-dkv, 2015 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 29701, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 11, 2015). However, a district court is not required
to review “a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). A district judge
should adopt the findings and rulings of the magistrate judge to which no specific objection is
filed. Brown, 47 F. Supp. 3d at 674.
The Court has reviewed the record in this case, including the Complaint, the Motion to
Compel Arbitration, the Response and Reply to the Motion, and the Report and Recommendation.
(ECF Nos. 1, 15 & 28-30.) As noted above, Plaintiff has failed to file any objections to the Report,
and the time to do so has expired. Therefore, after a full de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation, including the “Proposed Findings of Fact” and the “Proposed
Conclusions of Law”, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation that Barclays’
Motion to Compel Arbitration be GRANTED and the case be DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 8th day of February 2022.
s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
United States District Judge