Hofhines v. Bank of America, N.A., et al

Filing 41

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; adopting 39 Report and Recommendations.; denying 9 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 9 Motion to Remand to State Court. 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

CAROLE A. HOFHINES,
Case No. 1:11-CV-00460-EJL-REB
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING,
L.P., et al
Defendants.

On May 16, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush issued a Report
and Recommendation (Dkt. 39) 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 Report and
Recommendation. No objections were filed by the parties.
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
ORDER - 1

(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 Report
and Recommendation. The Court did, however, review the Report and Recommendation
and the record in this matter and finds the Report and Recommendation to be wellfounded in the law based on the facts of this particular case.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 39) shall
be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in its entirety.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint and Request to Remand to State Court (Dkt. 9) is DENIED.
DATED: June 7, 2012

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

ORDER - 2