Kelly et al v. U.S. Bank et al, No. 3:2008cv01421 - Document 297 (D. Or. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING Motion for Attorney Fees 232 ; ADOPTING Findings and Recommendation 286 . Signed on 2/11/2011 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

Download PDF
Kelly et al v. U.S. Bank et al Doc. 297 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ROBERTA KELLY and D. LAWRENCE OLSTAD, Plaintiffs, CV 08-1421-AC OPINION AND ORDER v. U.S. BANK; BISHOP, WHITE & MARSHALL, P.S., A Washington Professional Services company; and KRISTA WHITE, Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On December 29, 2010, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation ( F&R ) (#286) in the above-captioned case recommending that I grant U.S. Bank s Motion for Entry of Award of Attorney Fees and Costs (#232) in the amount of $8,396.04. On January 12, 2011, Roberta Kelly timely filed objections (#290). DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are Dockets.Justia.com addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge s F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R (#286) as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 10th day of February, 2011. /s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.