Nguyen et al v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, et al

Filing 98

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review of the F &R, I agree with Judge Acosta's reasoning and conclusions. Therefore, I ADOPT the F&R 96 as my own opinion. I GRANT Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 65 and I DENY Plaintiff Amy Nguyen's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 70 . This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 17th day of December, 2019, by Chief United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pjg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

AMY NGUYEN,
Plaintiff,

No. 3:16-cv-00316-AC

v.
OPINION AND ORDER

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, a/kla FREDDIE MAC;
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC;
CYPREXX SERVICES LLC,
Defendants.

MOSMAN,J.,
On November 21, 2019, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and
Recommendation ("F&R") [ECF 96], recommending that I grant Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment [ECF 65] and that I deny Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
[ECF 70]. No objections were filed.

LEGAL STANDARD
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)(l)(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)(l)(C).
CONCLUSION
Upon review of the F &R, I agree with Judge Acosta's reasoning and conclusions.
Therefore, I ADOPT the F&R [96] as my own opinion. I GRANT Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment [65] and I DENY Plaintiff Amy Nguyen's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment [70]. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

2 - OPINION AND ORDER

of December, 2019.