Lehman Brothers Holdings Incorporated v. Hamilton Mortgage Company
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER approving, incorporating, and adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Edward C Voss 14 ; Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Hamilton Mortgage Company 12 is granted; th e Clerk shall enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and against Defendant Hamilton Mortgage Company in the amount of $628,367.09; the Judgment shall earn interest at the annual federal rate from the date of entry of the Judgment until paid in full. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 5/8/12. (REW)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.,
10
11
Plaintiff,
vs.
12
Hamilton Mortgage Co.,
13
Defendant.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-11-1700-PHX-SMM (ECV)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
AND ORDER
15
16
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging breach of contract against
17
Defendant. (Doc. 1.) This matter was assigned and litigated before Magistrate Judge
18
Edward C. Voss. (Doc. 7.) On April 3, 2012, Magistrate Judge Voss filed a Report and
19
Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. 14.) To date, no objections have been filed.
20
STANDARD OF REVIEW
21
When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court must
22
“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is
23
made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
24
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter
25
v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch.
26
Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s
27
recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s
28
factual findings; the Court then may decide the dispositive motion on the applicable law.
1
Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Campbell v. United States
2
Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)).
3
By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives its right to
4
challenge the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate Judge’s
5
legal conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455
6
(9th Cir. 1998) (failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be
7
weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); Martinez v.
8
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187
9
(9th Cir. 1980)).
10
DISCUSSION
11
Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the
12
Magistrate Judge, and no objections having been made by Defendants thereto, the Court
13
hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
14
CONCLUSION
15
For the reasons set forth,
16
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED approving, incorporating, and adopting the Report and
17
18
19
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss. (Doc. 14.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against
Defendant Hamilton Mortgage Company is GRANTED. (Doc. 12.)
20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor
21
of Plaintiff Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and against Defendant Hamilton Mortgage
22
Company in the amount of $628,367.09. The Judgment shall earn interest at the annual
23
federal rate from the date of entry of this Judgment until paid in full.
24
DATED this 8th day of May, 2012.
25
26
27
28
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?