From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gill v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Mar 25, 2013
11 Civ 2713 (PAC) (RLE) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2013)

Opinion

11 Civ 2713 (PAC) (RLE)

03-25-2013

MICHAEL J. GILL, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY and MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge:

On April 21, 201 L Plaintiff Michael Gill ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint against Defendants Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. ("Merrill Lynch") asserting claims relating to a February 2001 arbitration. The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Ronald Ellis on April 22, 2011. On September 26, 2011, FINRA moved to dismiss the Complaint, and on January 16, 2012, Merrill Lynch moved for summary judgment to dismiss the Complaint and to confirm the arbitration award. On March 6, 2013, Magistrate Judge Ellis issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that the Court grant FINRA's motion to dismiss; grant Merrill Lynch's motion for summary judgment and motion to confirm the arbitration award; and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (ECF No. 30.)

The 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). The Court may adopt those portions of the R&R to which no timely objection has been made, so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). After being served with a copy of the magistrate judge's recommended disposition, a party has fourteen days to file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections to a report and recommendation results in waiver of those objections. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985).

As of the dale of this Order, the Court has not received any objections to the R&R. Thus, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. Having found none, the Court hereby adopts the R&R in full. FINRA's motion to dismiss is GRANTED; Merrill Lynch's motion for summary judgment and to confirm the arbitration award is GRANTED; and Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of each defendant and to close this case. Dated: New York, New York

March 25, 2013

SO ORDERED

______________________

PAULA. CROTTY

United States District Judge
Copies mailed by chambers to: Mr. Michael Gill
P.O. Box 189
Sugar Loaf, NY 10981
Mr. Michael Gill
25 Bedford Ave.
Unit B204
Norwalk, CT 06850


Summaries of

Gill v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Mar 25, 2013
11 Civ 2713 (PAC) (RLE) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2013)
Case details for

Gill v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth.

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL J. GILL, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY and…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Mar 25, 2013

Citations

11 Civ 2713 (PAC) (RLE) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2013)

Citing Cases

Imbruce v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, Inc.

We have no trouble concluding that claims asserting that AAA violated its rules by failing to collect a…

Schorr v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n

First, where courts have applied that immunity doctrine, they have typically done so to prevent arbitral…