Placencia v. World Savings Bank, FSB

Filing 46

OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING Motion to Dismiss 3 ; ADOPTING Findings and Recommendation 43 . Signed on 6/16/2011 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
JUDY ANN PLACENCIA,
CV 10-1130-HU
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB, a/k/a
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a/k/a
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, f/k/a
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB,
Defendant.
MOSMAN, J.,
On May 12, 2011, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued his Findings and Recommendation
(“F&R”) [43] in the above-captioned case recommending that the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Complaint [3] be granted.
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 regarding 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, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal 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
OPINION AND ORDER - 1

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject,
or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubel’s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [43]
as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

16

day of June, 2011.

/s/ Michael W.Mosman
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Court

OPINION AND ORDER - 2