Nelmes v. Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. et al

Filing 74

ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordi ngly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 67 . Defendants motions to dismiss (ECF 30 , 44 , 46 ) are GRANTED. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Court further finds that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and Plaintiffs in forma pauperis status should be revoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Signed on 12/20/2016 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CONNIE C. NELMES,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:16-cv-615-AC
ORDER

v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC., et al.,
Defendants.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on November 9, 2016. ECF 67. Judge Acosta recommended that Defendants’ motions
to dismiss should be granted and this case should be dismissed with prejudice. No party has filed
objections.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the court
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

PAGE 1 – ORDER

If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended
to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”);
United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the
court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but
not otherwise”).
Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act “does not preclude
further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.”
Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate’s findings
and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”
No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee and reviews Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the
face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta’s
Findings and Recommendation, ECF 67. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF 30, 44, 46) are
GRANTED. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Court further finds that any appeal from
this Order would not be taken in good faith and Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should be
revoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 20th day of December, 2016.

/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

PAGE 2 – ORDER