U.S. Bank National Association v. Larry et al

Filing 29

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Acostas recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R 25 as my own opinion. Signed on 2/10/14 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Trustee, on behalf of the Holders of the
Home Equity Asset Trust 2006-7 Home Equity
pass through Certificates, Series 2006-7,
No. 3:13-cv-01553-AC
Plaintiff,
OPINION & ORDER
v.
ROBERT J. LARRY, STATE OF OREGON,
DISCOVERY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
FOX CAPITAL CORP., a Washington corporation,
and OCCUPANTS OF THE PROPERTY,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J,
Defendant Robert J. Larry removed this case to this court on September 3, 2013. (Not. of
Removal [2].) Plaintiffs moved for remand [13] under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Mr. Larry
moved for dismissal of the State of Oregon from the suit [18]. Judge Acosta issued his Findings
and Recommendation [25], recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [13] be
GRANTED and Defendant Larry’s Motion to Dismiss [18] be DENIED as moot. (F&R [25] at
4.)
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

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

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 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 [25]
as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10thday of February, 2014.
____

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

2 – OPINION AND ORDER