Weseman v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.

Filing 88

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewart's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R 81 as my own opinion, 60 . Signed on 5/5/09 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

STEFANIE WESEMAN, No. CV 06-1338-ST Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC., a California Corporation Defendant.

MOSMAN, J., On March 11, 2009, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (#81) in the above-captioned case recommending that Wells Fargo's Motion for Summary Judgment (#60) be GRANTED. Plaintiff filed an objection to the F&R (#84). DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal PAGE 1 OPINION AND ORDER

conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewart's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R (#81) as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 5th day of May, 2009. /s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court

PAGE 2 OPINION AND ORDER