McGuire v. CarMax Business Services LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Nina Y. Wang

Civil Action No. 23-cv-02938-NYW-SBP

JASIN MCGUIRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES LLC, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., and EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge entered by the Honorable Susan Prose on August 16, 2024. [Doc. 37]. Judge Prose recommends that both Defendant CarMax Business Services LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Judicial Proceedings (the “CarMax Motion”), [Doc. 14], and Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Supporting Memorandum of Law (the “Experian Motion”), [Doc. 18], be granted, see [Doc. 37 at 40]. Judge Prose further recommends that this action be administratively closed pending arbitration as to all Defendants, including Equifax Information Services LLC, which has filed an Answer. [Id. at 38–41]; see also [Doc. 25]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the Parties. [Doc. 37 at 41 n.14]; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on August 16, 2024. See [Doc. 37 at 41]. No Party has objected to the Recommendation and the time to do so has elapsed.1 In the absence of an objection, a district court may review a magistrate judge’s recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927

F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a [magistrate judge’s] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned, and a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Doc. 37] is

ADOPTED;

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff has been granted e-filing status and therefore receives service of all Court orders via email, rather than United States mail. He is thus not entitled to the three-day extension of the objection deadline contemplated by Rule 6. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (“When a party may or must act within a specified time after being served and service is made [by mail], . . . 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a).”). The District of Colorado’s Electronic Case Filing Procedures provide that “[p]ro se e-filers must file all permissible pleadings electronically.” See United States District Court – District of Colorado, Electronic Case Filing Procedures (Civil cases), Section II(2.2)(b)(1), http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Portals/0/Documents/CMECF/ ECF_Filing_Procedures_Civil_6.1.pdf?ver=2024-01-03-114358-133. Plaintiff is REMINDED that because he has been granted e-filing status, he must file his documents electronically, not by mail. 2 This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or . . . contrary to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). (2) | Defendant CarMax Business Services LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Judicial Proceedings [Doc. 14] is GRANTED; (3) | Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Supporting Memorandum of Law [Doc. 18] is GRANTED; and (4) This case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED in accordance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2. This case may be reopened upon a motion of any Party for good cause shown.

DATED: September 3, 2024 BY THE COURT: yh iy Y. Wang □ ) United States District Judge