Filed: Feb. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 02, 2015
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION DAVID NUFFER, Magistrate Judge. The Report & Recommendation 1 by United States Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead issued on January 15, 2015, sets forth recommendations on several pending motions. 2 The parties were notified of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation (R&R) within fourteen (14) days of service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As of the date of this order, no objec
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION DAVID NUFFER, Magistrate Judge. The Report & Recommendation 1 by United States Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead issued on January 15, 2015, sets forth recommendations on several pending motions. 2 The parties were notified of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation (R&R) within fourteen (14) days of service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As of the date of this order, no object..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
DAVID NUFFER, Magistrate Judge.
The Report & Recommendation1 by United States Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead issued on January 15, 2015, sets forth recommendations on several pending motions.2 The parties were notified of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation (R&R) within fourteen (14) days of service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As of the date of this order, no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.
On January 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a memorandum3 in support of the R&R. And on January 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion4 to Accept Report & Recommendations [86] with Following Clarifications and Understanding. The two documents are identical. A review of Plaintiff's submitted documents reveals that Plaintiff is requesting legal advice, that is, he requests clarification on his understanding of the Magistrate Judge's R&R. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), "[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Plaintiff does not make any objections to any particular portion or specified findings or recommendations of the R&R. While the Court is mindful of Plaintiff's pro se status, "it is not the proper function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant[,]" and provide him clarification on his understanding of the R&R.5 Nor is it the function of the opposing party to provide any clarification.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has reviewed de novo all materials, including the record that was before the magistrate judge and the reasoning set forth in the Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees with the analysis and conclusion of the magistrate judge, and adopts the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED;6
(2) Defendant's Motion for Default judgment is DENIED;7
(3) Plaintiff's Motion to Strike USAA FSB's November 20, 2014 Counterclaim is DENIED;8
(4) Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED IN PART;9
(5) Plaintiff's sole cause of action, the Fair Credit Reporting Act claim, is DISMISSED.
