Egan v. Midland Funding LLC et al, No. 3:2016cv01847 - Document 62 (D. Or. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 57 . The Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs 22 is Granted in Part and Denied in Part. The Bill of Costs 21 is Granted. Defendants are ordered to pay Plaintiff's attorney fees in the amount of $23,810 and costs in the amount of $400. Signed on 11/14/17 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Egan v. Midland Funding LLC et al Doc. 62 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION ALEXANDER EGAN, Case No. 3:16-cv-01847-PK Plaintiff, v. OPINION AND ORDER MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC AKA MIDLAND FUNDING NCC-2 CORP., and GORDON AYLWORTH & TAMI PC, Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On August 28, 2017, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [57], recommending that Plaintiff Alexander Egan’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs [22] should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and that Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs [21] should be GRANTED. Defendant Gordon Alyworth & Tami, PC objected [59] and Plaintiff Alexander Egan responded [60]. 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 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). Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [57] as my own opinion. The Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs [22] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Bill of Costs [21] is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to pay Plaintiff’s attorney fees in the amount of $23,810 and costs in the amount of $400. IT IS SO ORDERED. 14th DATED this ____ day of November, 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.
