U.S. Bank National Association v. Edwards et al, No. 3:2016cv01307 - Document 96 (D. Or. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Acostas recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 74 in full. I GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 56 . Signed on 9/26/2018 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (kms)
Download PDF
U.S. Bank National Association v. Edwards et al Doc. 96 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, Case No. 3:16-cv-01307-AC Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. TERENCE EDWARDS; WEST COAST SERVICING, INC.; GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC; LSI TITLE COMPANY OF OREGON, LLC; and PERSONS OR PARTIES UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY RIGHT, TITLE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT HEREIN, Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On August 28, 2018, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [74], recommending that I GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [56]. No party objected. 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 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 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). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [74] in full. I GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [56]. IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 day of September, 2018. DATED this ____ /s/Michael W. Mosman ________________________ MICHAEL W. MOSMAN Chief United States District Judge 2 – OPINION AND ORDER