Tripp v. Wells Fargo & Company, 6:18-cv-00983-MK. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20190405847
Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 25, 2019
Summary: ORDER ANN AIKEN , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 53) recommending that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 24) should be granted. Plaintiff and Defendants then timely filed objections to the F&R (doc. 55 and 57, respectively). The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's F&R, the district court must make a de novo
Summary: ORDER ANN AIKEN , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 53) recommending that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 24) should be granted. Plaintiff and Defendants then timely filed objections to the F&R (doc. 55 and 57, respectively). The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's F&R, the district court must make a de novo d..
More
ORDER
ANN AIKEN, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc. 53) recommending that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 24) should be granted. Plaintiff and Defendants then timely filed objections to the F&R (doc. 55 and 57, respectively). The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's F&R, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). Based on my review of the F&R and the documents in the case, I find no error in Judge Kasubhai's F&R and the parties' objections do not undermine Judge Kasubhai's analysis. Thus, I adopt the F&R (doc. 53) in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 24) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs RESPA and TILA claims are therefore dismissed with prejudice and Plaintiffs Oregon UTPA claim is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
