Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-01566/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-01566-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 896
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Arbitration
Cause of Action: 09:1 U.S. Arbitration Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Marcos A. Madril, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Wells Fargo Advisors LLC, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-01566-TUC-RCC

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Arbitrators’ Award or 

Modify the Decision (Doc. 21), Defendant’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (Doc. 

22), Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award (Doc. 25), 

and Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich’s Report and Recommendation (R & R) (Doc. 

37). The parties did not file objections to Judge Markovich’s R & R. The Court accepts 

and adopts Magistrate Judge Markovich’s May 18th, 2015 R & R as the findings of fact 

and conclusions of law of this Court and confirms the arbitration award. 

I. Background 

 The factual and procedural background in this case is thoroughly detailed in 

Magistrate Judge Markovich’s R & R. This Court fully incorporates by reference the 

“Factual and Procedural Background” section of the R & R into this Order. 

II. Discussion 

 The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court 

Case 4:14-cv-01566-RCC-EJM Document 38 Filed 07/31/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

may “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 

return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a 

de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection 

is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 

992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge’s order unless 

his factual findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate judge’s decision...is entitled to great deference 

by the district court.” U.S. v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001). A 

failure to raise an objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s findings of 

fact. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a 

Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of 

finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 

Here, the parties have not objected to the R & R, which relieves the Court of its 

obligation to review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1) ] does not ... 

require any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the 

magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”). This Court considers 

the R & R to be thorough and well-reasoned. After a thorough and de novo review of the 

record, the Court adopts the R & R of Magistrate Judge Markovich. Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Markovich’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 37) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law by this Court.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator’s 

Case 4:14-cv-01566-RCC-EJM Document 38 Filed 07/31/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Award or Modify the Decision (Doc. 21) is DENIED. Defendant’s Petition to Confirm 

Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment Thereon (Doc. 22) and Notice of Motion and 

Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award (Doc. 25) are GRANTED. 

 Dated this 30th day of July, 2015. 

Case 4:14-cv-01566-RCC-EJM Document 38 Filed 07/31/15 Page 3 of 3