From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garnes v. Pritchard Indus.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jun 13, 2023
20 Civ. 3843 (PAE) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 13, 2023)

Opinion

20 Civ. 3843 (PAE) (SLC)

06-13-2023

MARK GARNES, Plaintiff, v. PRITCHARD INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant.


OPINION & ORDER

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, DISTRICT JUDGE.

Pro se plaintiff Mark Games (“Games”) brings claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., and for breach of contract, against his former employer, defendant Pritchard Industries, Inc (“Pritchard”). See Dkt. 7 (“Amended Complaint”). Pritchard moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as time-barred and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or, in the alternative, to compel Games to arbitrate his claims and to stay or dismiss this action pending arbitration. Dkt. 33 (the “Motion”). Games opposes the Motion. Dkt. 47.

Before the Court is the May 23, 2023 Report and Recommendation of the Hon. Sarah L. Cave, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court (1) grant the motion insofar as it seeks to compel Games to arbitrate Title VII claims; and (2) stay the entire action, including a non-arbitrable breach of contract claim. Diet. 50 (“Report”). The Court incorporates by reference the summary of the facts provided in the Report. For the following reasons, the Court adopts these recommendations to compel arbitration and to stay the case.

Judge Cave's Report alternatively makes recommendations as to the disposition of various claims should the motion to compel arbitration be denied. Because the Court grants the motion to compel arbitration, the decision does not review-or comment upon-the alternative recommendations.

DISCUSSION

In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Ruiz v. Citibank, AU., No. 10 Civ. 5950 (KPF), 2014 WL 4635575, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014) (quoting King v. Greiner, No. 02 Civ. 5810 (DLC), 2009 WL 2001439, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009)); see also, e.g., Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F.Supp.2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y, 2003).

As no party has submitted objections to the Report, review for clear error is appropriate. Careful review of Judge Cave's thorough and well-reasoned Report reveals no facial error in its conclusions; the Report is therefore adopted in its entirety. Because the Report explicitly states that “failure to object within fourteen (14) days will result in a waiver of objections and will preclude appellate review,” Report at 31, the parties' failure to object operates as a waiver of appellate review. See Caidor v. Onondaga Cty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Small v. Sec 'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir, 1989) (per curiam)).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court compels Games to arbitrate his Title VII claims, and that the entire case-including the breach of contract claim-be stayed pending arbitration. The Court respectfully directs the Clerk to mail a copy of this decision to plaintiff at the address on file.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Garnes v. Pritchard Indus.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jun 13, 2023
20 Civ. 3843 (PAE) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 13, 2023)
Case details for

Garnes v. Pritchard Indus.

Case Details

Full title:MARK GARNES, Plaintiff, v. PRITCHARD INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Jun 13, 2023

Citations

20 Civ. 3843 (PAE) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 13, 2023)

Citing Cases

Scott v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

While the Court ordinarily “lacks the authority to extend the [Title VII or ADEA] 90-day limitations period…

Garnes v. Pritchard Indus.

In that case, this Court compelled plaintiff to arbitrate his Title VII claims and stayed the entire case,…