Paulson v. Arbaugh et al
OPINION AND ORDER. Upon review, I agree with Judge Dunns recommendations, and I ADOPT the Reportsand Recommendations [1-16 and 1-17] as my own opinion. Signed on 10/18/12 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
OPINION AND ORDER
MATT ARBAUGH et al.,
On April 26, 2012, United States Bankruptcy Judge Randall L. Dunn issued his Report
and Recommendation to the district court recommending [1-16] that I grant defendant Craig
Russillo’s motion for summary judgment [1-1] and recommending [1-17] that I grant defendant
Matthew Arbaugh’s motion for summary judgment [1-4]. Plaintiff objected [1-20]. Defendants
filed a joint response .
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), a bankruptcy judge may hear a noncore proceeding
that is “related to” a case under title 11. The bankruptcy judge will submit proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law to the district court. Id; Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9033(a). A party may file
“written objections which identify the specific proposed findings or conclusions objected to and
state the grounds for such objection.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9033(b). An opposing party may
1 – OPINION AND ORDER
respond. Id. The district court is generally required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as to which an objection is
made. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify the proposed
findings of fact or conclusions of law.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9033(d).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Dunn’s recommendations, and I ADOPT the Reports
and Recommendations [1-16 and 1-17] as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
day of October, 2012.
/s/ Michael W. Mosman
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge
2 – OPINION AND ORDER