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

Filing 120

OPINION and ORDER - Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT Findings and Recommendation 117 , except as noted. I GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney Fees 101 and Bill of Costs 103 . Plaintiff is awarded $27,150.20 in attorney fees and $1,367.00 in costs.IT IS SO ORDERED.DATED this 31st day of May, 2019, by Chief United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman. (Mailed to Pro Se party on 5/31/19.) (peg)

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

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Trustee for Greenpoint Mortgage Funding
Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2006-AR4,

No. 3:16-cv-01307-AC
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER

v.
TERENCE EDWARDS et al.,

Defendants.

MOSMAN,J.,

On March 14, 2019, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and
Recommendation (F&R) [117], recommending that I should GRANT in part and DENY in part
Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney Fees [101] and Bill of Costs [103]. Neither party objected.
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)(l)(C). However, the
1 - OPINION AND ORDER

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).
Judge Acosta found that U.S. Bank did not file an affidavit in support of its Bill of Costs
[103], as required by Local Rule 54-l(a)(l) and28 U.S.C. § 1924. F&R [117] at 17. But
counsel for U.S. Bank signed a declaration on the Bill of Costs that satisfies the requirements of
Local Rule 54-l(a)(l) and 28 U.S.C. § 1924. Therefore, I do not adopt Judge Acosta's finding
that U.S. Bank failed to comply with these requirements or his findings regarding suppo1i in the
record for U.S. Bank's costs. See F&R [117] at 17-18. Because Judge Acosta found that the
record verified the necessity and reasonableness of U.S. Bank's costs for transcripts of Mr.
Edwards's depositions, my narrow exception does not affect the validity of Judge Acosta's
recommendation on U.S. Bank's Bill of Costs.
CONCLUSION
Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [117]
except as noted above. I GRANT in paii and DENY in part Plaintiffs Motion for Attomey Fees
[101] and Bill of Costs [103]. Plaintiff is awarded $27,150.20 in attomey fees and $1,367.00 in
costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this~ day of May, 2019.

~

Chief United States District Judge

2 - OPINION AND ORDER