U.S. Bank National Association v. Edwards et al, No. 3:2016cv01307 - Document 120 (D. Or. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER - Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT Findings and Recommendation 117 , except as noted. I GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney Fees 101 and Bill of Costs 103 . Plaintiff is awarded $27,150.20 in attorney fees and $1,367.00 in costs.IT IS SO ORDERED.DATED this 31st day of May, 2019, by Chief United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman. (Mailed to Pro Se party on 5/31/19.) (peg)

Download PDF
U.S. Bank National Association v. Edwards et al Doc. 120 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR4, No. 3:16-cv-01307-AC Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. TERENCE EDWARDS et al., Defendants. MOSMAN,J., On March 14, 2019, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [117], recommending that I should GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney Fees [101] and Bill of Costs [103]. Neither party objected. 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)(l)(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 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)(l)(C). Judge Acosta found that U.S. Bank did not file an affidavit in support of its Bill of Costs [103], as required by Local Rule 54-l(a)(l) and28 U.S.C. § 1924. F&R [117] at 17. But counsel for U.S. Bank signed a declaration on the Bill of Costs that satisfies the requirements of Local Rule 54-l(a)(l) and 28 U.S.C. § 1924. Therefore, I do not adopt Judge Acosta's finding that U.S. Bank failed to comply with these requirements or his findings regarding suppo1i in the record for U.S. Bank's costs. See F&R [117] at 17-18. Because Judge Acosta found that the record verified the necessity and reasonableness of U.S. Bank's costs for transcripts of Mr. Edwards's depositions, my narrow exception does not affect the validity of Judge Acosta's recommendation on U.S. Bank's Bill of Costs. CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [117] except as noted above. I GRANT in paii and DENY in part Plaintiffs Motion for Attomey Fees [101] and Bill of Costs [103]. Plaintiff is awarded $27,150.20 in attomey fees and $1,367.00 in costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this~ day of May, 2019. 2 - OPINION AND ORDER Chief United States District Judge

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.