Fauley v. Washington Mutual Bank FA et al

Filing 35

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Acostas recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R 33 as my own opinion. Defendant LNV Corp.s Motion for Judicial Notice 10 is GRANTED and its Motion to Dismiss 6 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed on 3/21/14 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

ROBYNNE A. FAULEY,
No. 3:13-cv-00581-AC
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA,
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY
AMERICA, as trustee, LNV CORP.,
DOES 1–20, and RESIDENTIAL
FUNDING CO., LLC,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
On February 19, 2014, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued his Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [33] in the above-captioned case, recommending that Defendant
LNV Corp.’s Motion for Judicial Notice [10] be GRANTED, its Motion to Dismiss [6] be
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and its motion for a more definite statement be
GRANTED. No objections were filed.

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

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). 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
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 Acosta’s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [33]
as my own opinion. Defendant LNV Corp.’s Motion for Judicial Notice [10] is GRANTED and
its Motion to Dismiss [6] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this __21st__ day of March, 2014.

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

2 – OPINION AND ORDER