Davis et al v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 3:2015cv01750 - Document 40 (D. Or. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER - Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Acostas recommendations and I ADOPT the F&R 37 as my own. Mr. Daviss Motion for Order of Default Judgment 16 is DENIED. Defendants Request for Judicial Notice 24 is GRANTED. Defendants Motion to Dismiss 23 is GRANTED. Mr. Daviss claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 24th day of January, 2017, by Chief United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman. (copy mailed to plaintiff Davis) (peg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Davis et al v. Countrywide Home Loans Doc. 40 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION PHILLIP DAVIS, JR. et al., No. 3:15-cv-01750-AC Plaintiffs, OPINION AND ORDER v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On November 30, 2016, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [37], recommending that I DENY Mr. Davis’s Motion for Order of Default Judgment [16], that I GRANT Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice [24], and that I GRANT the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint [23]. Mr. Davis objected [39] and Defendants failed to respond. 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 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 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 careful review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendations and I ADOPT the F&R [37] as my own. Mr. Davis’s Motion for Order of Default Judgment [16] is DENIED. Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice [24] is GRANTED. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [23] is GRANTED. Mr. Davis’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 DATED this ________ day of January, 2017. /s/ Michael W. Mosman ____________________________ MICHAEL W. MOSMAN Chief United States District Judge 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.
