Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1935-L.
March 16, 2009
ORDER
Before the court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, filed February 25, 2009. Plaintiff did not file objections.
Defendants moved to compel arbitration of this action pursuant to a loan agreement and guaranty, dated December 21, 2007, entered into by Plaintiff and Defendants. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, but states that the court should stay, rather than dismiss, the action pending arbitration. The magistrate judge held that although the court has discretion to dismiss the action, Defendants did not oppose Plaintiff's request to stay the action, and therefore recommended compelling arbitration but staying and administratively closing the action.
Having reviewed the pleadings, file and record in this case, and the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge, the court determines that the findings and conclusions are correct. The court determines that there is no reason to stay this action, as all of the claims are subject to arbitration, and therefore the court has discretion to dismiss with prejudice notwithstanding the language of 9 U.S.C. § 3. Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 975 F.2d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1992); see also Fedmet Corp. v. M/V BUYALYK, 194 F.3d 674, 676 (5th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge's findings and conclusions are therefore accepted by the court. The court, however, disagrees that the action should be stayed, as all matters are arbitrable. Accordingly, the court grants Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration, denies Plaintiff's request to stay the action, and dismisses Plaintiff's action with prejudice.