Parsley, et al v. Ditech Financial LLC, et al, No. 3:2016cv00175 - Document 61 (D. Or. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Court agrees with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and ADOPT the F&R 50 as my own opinion. Ditech's Motion for Summary Judgment 20 is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint 28 is DENIED Signed on 7/5/2017 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pg)

Download PDF
Parsley, et al v. Ditech Financial LLC, et al Doc. 61 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION JAMES H. PARSLEY and MARIE E. PARSLEY, No. 3:16-cv-00175-SB Plaintiffs, OPINION AND ORDER v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On April 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [50], recommending that Defendant Ditech’s Motion for Summary Judgment [20] should be GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint [28] should be DENIED. No objections to the F&R 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 recommendations as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 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 with 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 Beckerman’s recommendation and ADOPT the F&R [50] as my own opinion. Ditech’s Motion for Summary Judgment [20] is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint [28] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 5th day of July, 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.