Emmert v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company, No. 3:2011cv00003 - Document 62 (D. Or. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewarts recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R 59 as my own opinion. Defendants amended motion for summary judgment 50 is GRANTED. Signed on 6/7/12 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION TERRY W. EMMERT, No. 3:11-cv-00003-ST Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, Defendant. MOSMAN, J., On May 17, 2012, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and Recommendation ( F&R ) [59] in the above-captioned case, recommending that I grant the amended motion for summary judgment [50] filed by Stewart Title Guaranty Company and joined by third-party defendant Pacific Northwest Title of Oregon, Inc., and that I dismiss this case with prejudice. No objections were filed. 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 1 OPINION AND ORDER 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 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 part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewart s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [59] as my own opinion. Defendant s amended motion for summary judgment [50] is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 7th day of June, 2012. /s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court 2 OPINION AND ORDER .

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.