Baldin et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al
Filing
223
OPINION and ORDER - I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 219 as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 24th day of May, 2016, by Chief United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman (peg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
AMY BALDIN, an individual and as sole manager
of LUGANO PROPERTIES 4, LLC, a Nevada
Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff,
No. 3:12-cv-00648-AC
v.
OPINION AND ORDER
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a National Bank
registered to do business in Oregon; and
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE,
a division of WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendants.
On April 12, 2016, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation
[219], recommending Wells Fargo’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs [205] should be
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Judge Acosta recommends awarding Wells Fargo
attorney fees in the amount of $45,504.20 and costs in the amount of $2,599.55. Plaintiff
objected in part [221], and Defendant responded [222].
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
1 – OPINION AND ORDER
make a de novo detennination regarding those portions of the repo1i or specified findings or
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l )(C). However, the comi
is not required to review, de novo or under any other stan dard, the factual or legal conclusions of
the magistrate judge as to those po1iions 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 scrntiny 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 paii of the F&R. 28 U.S .C. § 636(b)(l)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [219]
as my own op1mon.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this .l!..._ day of May, 2016.
/s/ Michael W. Mosman
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge
2 - OPINION AND ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?