The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
ARNEZZ STEWART, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:22-cv-02480-JTF-tmp
)
CONN APPLIANCES, INC. )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS
CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Before the Court is Defendant Conn Appliance’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, filed on
August 11, 2022. (ECF No. 8.) After screening Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2), Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham entered a Report and Recommendation (“R. &
R.”) on October 20, 2022, advising the Court to grant the Motion to Compel and dismiss Plaintiff’s
complaint without prejudice. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff filed no objections and his time to do so has
passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); LR 72.1(g)(2) (objections must be filed within fourteen (14)
days after being served a copy of the R. & R.). For the following reasons, the R & R should be
ADOPTED, Defendant’s Motion to Compel shall be GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims
DISMISSED without prejudice.
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). 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). However, “[w]hen 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee notes. The district
court is not required to review, and indeed “should adopt[,] the findings and rulings of the
Magistrate Judge to which no specific objection is filed.” Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Shelby Cty.
Sch., 47 F. Supp. 3d 665, 674 (W.D. Tenn. 2014) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)).
Here, the Chief Magistrate Judge found that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration
shall be granted in order to enforce the arbitration agreement between the parties. (ECF No. 15,
12.) As noted, Plaintiff has failed to file any objections to the R&R. After review of the record,
the Court is satisfied that there is no clear error, and the Court agrees with the Chief Magistrate
Judge that the Motion to Compel should be granted. Brown, 47 F. Supp. 3d at 674.
CONCLUSION
In the absence of any party objections and having satisfied itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation to Compel Arbitration and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.
The Court CERTIFIES that Plaintiff may not appeal the determination herein in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of November, 2022.
s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR.
United States District Judge