Ceperich et al v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; granting 11 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 16 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; incorporating and adopting 23 Report and Recommendations; dismissing with prejudice 1 Complaint. 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 (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
LYUBOV CEPERICH and RUSSELL
CEPERICH,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:12-cv-00063-EJL-LMB
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

v.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

On January 15, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle issued a
Report and Recommendation in this matter. (Dkt. 23.) The Report and Recommendation
sets forth the factual and procedural history of the case and recommends that both of the
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss be granted and the Complaint be dismissed with
prejudice. 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.
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,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

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 Ninth Circuit
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
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
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

error on the face of the record. The Magistrate Judge properly set forth the law applicable
to the Motions to Dismiss and has appropriately applied the law to the facts and
circumstances of this case. The Court finds the Report and Recommendation is wellfounded in the law based on the facts of this particular case and this Court is in agreement
with the same. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation and
will dismiss the case.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. 23) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in
its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
1)

The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 11) is GRANTED.

2)

The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 16) is GRANTED.

3)

The Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED: February 21, 2013

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3