U.S. Bank National Association v. Edwards et al, No. 3:2016cv01307 - Document 30 (D. Or. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER - Upon review, I agree with Judge Acostas recommendations and ADOPT the F&R 27 as my own opinion. Accordingly, I GRANT in part and DENY in part U.S. Banks Motion to Dismiss 4 , and GRANT Attorney Defendants Motion to Dismiss 9 . However, I also give Mr. Edwards leave to amend his first counterclaim to assert additional facts supporting his securitization theory. Mr. Edwardss second counterclaim is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.DATED this 3rd day of August, 2017, by Chief United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman. (copy mailed to defendant Edwards) (peg)

Download PDF
U.S. Bank National Association v. Edwards et al Doc. 30 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 PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATE SERIES 2006-AR4, No. 3:16-cv-01307-AC Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. TERRENCE EDWARDS et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On June 19, 2017, Magistrate Judge John v. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [27], recommending that U.S. Bank’s Motion to Dismiss [4] should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and that Attorney Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [9] should be GRANTED. 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 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com recommendations 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 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). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendations and ADOPT the F&R [27] as my own opinion. Accordingly, I GRANT in part and DENY in part U.S. Bank’s Motion to Dismiss [4], and GRANT Attorney Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [9]. However, I also give Mr. Edwards leave to amend his first counterclaim to assert additional facts supporting his securitization theory. Mr. Edwards’s second counterclaim is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3rd DATED this _____ day of August, 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.