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-