Charles v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 3:17-CV-0955-YY. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20190221g18
Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge You issued a Findings and Recommendation [42] on August 1, 2018, in which she recommends the Court grant Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the distric
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge You issued a Findings and Recommendation [42] on August 1, 2018, in which she recommends the Court grant Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge You issued a Findings and Recommendation [42] on August 1, 2018, in which she recommends the Court grant Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and concludes that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge You's Findings and Recommendation [42]. Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration [23] is granted and this case is stayed pending individual arbitration of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim alleged by Plaintiff in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
