Federal National Mortgage Association v. Palmer et al

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; adopting 41 Amended Report and Recommendations. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case be REMANDED to the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for the County of Ada (Magistrate Division), Case No. CV OC 1111315.. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (dks)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, aka FANNIE MAE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:11-CV-00286-EJL-REB
ORDER

v.
NICHOLAS PALMER, an individual;
NICOLE PALMER, an individual;
DOES 1 THROUGH X, unknown
occupants of the property commonly
known as 2145 W. Divide Street,
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho,
Defendant.

On May 21, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush issued an
Amended Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 41) in this matter. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1), the parties had fourteen days in which to file written objections to the
Amended Report and Recommendation. No objections were filed by the parties.

ORDER - 1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
Moreover, this Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
which objection is made.” Id. In United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th
Cir. 2003), the court interpreted the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C):
The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge
must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo
if objection is made, but not otherwise. As the Peretz Court instructed, “to
the extent de novo review is required to satisfy Article III concerns, it need
not be exercised unless requested by the parties.” Peretz, 501 U.S. at 939
(internal citation omitted). Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a
district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the
parties themselves accept as correct. See Ciapponi, 77 F.3d at 1251
(“Absent an objection or request for review by the defendant, the district
court was not required to engage in any more formal review of the plea
proceeding.”); see also Peretz, 501 U.S. at 937-39 (clarifying that de novo
review not required for Article III purposes unless requested by the parties)
....
See also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). In this case, no
objections were filed so the Court need not conduct a de novo determination of the
Amended Report and Recommendation. The Court did, however, review the Amended
Report and Recommendation and the record in this matter and finds the Amended Report
and Recommendation to be well-founded in the law based on the facts of this particular
case.

ORDER - 2

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Amended Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. 41) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in
its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case be REMANDED to the Fourth
Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for the County of Ada (Magistrate Division),
Case No. CV OC 1111315.

DATED: June 12, 2012

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

ORDER - 3