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

Filing 30

OPINION and ORDER - Upon review, I agree with Judge Acostas recommendations and ADOPT the F&R 27 as my own opinion. Accordingly, I GRANT in part and DENY in part U.S. Banks Motion to Dismiss 4 , and GRANT Attorney Defendants Motion to Dismiss 9 . However, I also give Mr. Edwards leave to amend his first counterclaim to assert additional facts supporting his securitization theory. Mr. Edwardss second counterclaim is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.DATED this 3rd day of August, 2017, by Chief United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman. (copy mailed to defendant Edwards) (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 PASS THROUGH
CERTIFICATE SERIES 2006-AR4,
No. 3:16-cv-01307-AC
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
TERRENCE EDWARDS et al.,
Defendants.

MOSMAN, J.,
On June 19, 2017, Magistrate Judge John v. Acosta issued his Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [27], recommending that U.S. Bank’s Motion to Dismiss [4] should
be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and that Attorney Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
[9] should be GRANTED. No objections to the F&R were filed.
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

recommendations 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 with 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).
CONCLUSION
Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendations and ADOPT the F&R [27]
as my own opinion. Accordingly, I GRANT in part and DENY in part U.S. Bank’s Motion to
Dismiss [4], and GRANT Attorney Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [9]. However, I also give Mr.
Edwards leave to amend his first counterclaim to assert additional facts supporting his
securitization theory. Mr. Edwards’s second counterclaim is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3rd
DATED this _____ day of August, 2017.

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

2 – OPINION AND ORDER