Filed: Aug. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 03, 2015
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II , District Judge . Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) of the Honorable Cam Ferenbach, United States Magistrate Judge, entered May 20, 2015. A district 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). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommend
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II , District Judge . Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) of the Honorable Cam Ferenbach, United States Magistrate Judge, entered May 20, 2015. A district 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). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommenda..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, District Judge.
Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) of the Honorable Cam Ferenbach, United States Magistrate Judge, entered May 20, 2015.
A district 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). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct "any review," de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by June 6, 2015. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that an amended judgment be entered in this case, decreeing that Plaintiff, Matthew MacSwan, shall recover from Defendant, Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., judgment in the amount of $6,000.00, inclusive of all costs and attorney's fees. (ECF No. 12).
Therefore, the Court has determined that Magistrate Judge's Recommendation should be ACCEPTED and ADOPTED to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this opinion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
IT IS ORDERED that an amended judgment be entered in this case, decreeing that Plaintiff, Matthew MacSwan, shall recover from Defendant, Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., judgment in the amount of $6,000.00, inclusive of all costs and attorneys fees.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve this Order on the persons and respective addresses noted in the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
