Bostrom et al v. PNC Bank, National Association et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; granting in part and denying in part 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying as moot 13 Motion to Strike ; denying as moot 15 Motion to Take Judicial Notice; Case remanded to the Fourth District Court of the State of Idaho, Ada County. 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

ERIC BOSTROM AND PEGGY
BOSTROM,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:11-CV-00594-EJL
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

v.
PNC BANK, N.A., a Pennsylvania
Corporation, bda, PNC MORTGAGE;
NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE, a
division of NATIONAL CITY BANK;
PIONEER TITLE COMPANY OF ADA
COUNTY, dba PIONEER LENDER
TRUSTEE SERVICES; and DOES 1 25, inclusive, AND DOES I through X
inclusive
Defendants.

Chief United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued a Report and
Recommendation in this matter. (Dkt. 20.) 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 and the time for doing so has passed.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

DISCUSSION
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.”
Where the parties object to a report and recommendation, this Court “shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report which objection is made.” Id. Where,
however, no objections are filed the district court need not conduct a de novo review. 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). Furthermore, to
the extent that no objections are made, arguments to the contrary are waived. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (objections are waived if they are not filed within
fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation). “When no timely objection
is filed, the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

record in order to accept the recommendation.” Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th
Cir.1974)).
In this case, no objections were filed so the Court is not required to conduct a de
novo determination of the Report and Recommendation. The Court has, however,
reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the record in this matter and finds no clear
error on the face of the record. Moreover, the Court finds the Report and
Recommendation is well-founded in the law based on the facts of this particular case and
this Court is in agreement with the same.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. 20) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in
its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Motion to Take Judicial Notice (Dkt. 15) is DENIED as MOOT.
2. Motion to Strike (Dkt. 13) is DENIED as MOOT.
3. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 12) is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART consistent with the Report and Recommendation. The federal
law claims pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act are DISMISSED.
4. The state law claims are REMANDED to the Fourth District Court of the State

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3

of Idaho, in and for the County of Ada. The Clerk of Court shall effectuate the remand of
the case forthwith.
DATED: September 7, 2012

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 4