Sykes v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) et al

Filing 93

ORDER ; granting 72 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying as moot 75 Motion to Compel; denying as moot 78 Motion to Compel; denying as moot 80 Motion for Protective Order; denying as moot 81 Motion for Extension of Time to Fil e Response/Reply ; denying as moot 82 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; denying as moot 83 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; denying as moot 84 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; incorporating and adopting in its entirety 91 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (krb)

`
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

RICHARD SYKES,

Case No. 4:11-cv-00377-BLW-LMB
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
PIONEER TITLE OF ADA COUNTY,
AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT,
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
(MERS), FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION;
HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, INC.,
formerly known as AMERICAN
HOME MORTGAGE; NORTHWEST
TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.

On January 7, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle issued a
Report and Recommendation, recommending that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings be GRANTED. (Dkt. 72). Any party may challenge a magistrate judge’s
proposed recommendation by filing written objections within fourteen days after being
served with a copy of the Magistrate Judges’s Report and Recommendation. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district court must then “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which

ORDER - 1

objection is made.” Id. The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in
part, the findings and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Id.; see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b).
No objections to the report and recommendation were filed and the time for doing
so has passed. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the parties’
briefing on the Motion, and the entire record in this matter. Based upon this review, the
Court finds the Report and Recommendation has correctly decided the Motion.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Having conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, the
Court finds that Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle’s Report and
Recommendation is well founded in law and consistent with the Court’s own
view of the evidence in the record. Therefore, acting on the recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle, and this Court being fully advised in the
premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation
entered on January 7, 2013, (Dkt. 91), shall be, and is hereby,
INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in its entirety.
2. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED (Dkt. 72) is
GRANTED.
3. All other pending motions (Dkts. 51, 75, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, and 84) are
DENIED as MOOT; and

ORDER - 2

4. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.

DATED: February 5, 2013

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

ORDER - 3