Estate of Marjory Gail Thomas Osborn-Vincent v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.

Filing 266

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendations, and I ADOPT the F&R (ECF 258 ) as my own opinion. I DENY Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees (ECF 237 ) and Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF 239 ), as amended by Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Supplement (ECF 243 ). Decision is reserved on Defendants' Motion for Costs (ECF 237 ). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 7/28/2023 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pvh)

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

THE ESTATE OF MARJORY GAIL
THOMAS OSBORN-VINCENT,
Plaintiff,

No. 3:16-cv-02305-YY
OPINION AND ORDER

v.
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC. et al.,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
On May 19, 2023, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and
Recommendations (“F&R”) [ECF 258] recommending that I deny Defendants’ Motion for
Attorney Fees [ECF 237], deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions [ECF 239], as amended by
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Supplement [ECF 243], and reserve decision on Defendants’ Motion
for Costs [ECF 237]. No objections were filed. Upon review, I agree with Judge You, and I DENY
Defendants’ Motion for Attorney Fees and Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, as amended by
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Supplement. Decision is reserved on Defendants’ Motion for Costs.
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).
CONCLUSION
Upon review, I agree with Judge You’s recommendations, and I ADOPT the F&R [ECF
258] as my own opinion. I DENY Defendants’ Motion for Attorney Fees [ECF 237] and Plaintiff’s
Motion for Sanctions [ECF 239], as amended by Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Supplement [ECF
243]. Decision is reserved on Defendants’ Motion for Costs [ECF 237]. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this ______
28th day of July, 2023.

________________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Senior United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER