Estate of Marjory Gail Thomas Osborn-Vincent v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., No. 3:2016cv02305 - Document 269 (D. Or. 2023)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendations, and I ADOPT the F&R (ECF 267 ) as my own opinion. I GRANT Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF 237 ) and Bill of Costs (ECF 261 ). I AWARD Defendants $8,490.10 in costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 9/28/2023 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pvh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Estate of Marjory Gail Thomas Osborn-Vincent v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. Doc. 269 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION THE ESTATE OF MARJORY GAIL THOMAS OSBORN-VINCENT, No. 3:16-cv-02305-YY OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, V. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. et al., Defendants. MOSMAN,J., On September 11, 2023, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and Recommendations ("F&R") [ECF 267] recommending that to the extent the court reserved ruling on the costs requested in Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs [ECF 237], that motion now be granted, that Defendants' Bill of Costs [ECF 261] be granted, and that Defendants be awarded $8,490.10 in costs. No objections were filed. Upon review, I agree with Judge You, and I GRANT Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, GRANT Defendants' Bill of Costs, and AWARD Defendants $8,490.10 in costs. 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 repmi 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)(l)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de nova 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). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendations, and I ADOPT the F&R [ECF 267] as my own opinion. I GRANT Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs [ECF 237] and Bill of Costs [ECF 261]. I AWARD Defendants $8,490.10 in costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. 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.
