Balcom v. Peterson

• Court: District Court, D. Oregon
• Decided: March 4, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00528
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

LARRY BALCOM, an individual, by and Case No. 3:23-cv-00528-SB through his guardian ad litem, Mary Barnes, and MARY BARNES, OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING JUDGE BECKERMAN’S FINDINGS Plaintiffs, AND RECOMMENDATION

v.

CLINTON PETERSON AND APRIL PETERSON, a married couple, FORECLOSURE HELP, L.L.C., an Idaho Limited Liability Company, and JOHN & JANE DOE 1–5,

Defendants.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

No objections have been filed in response to Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 62. This Court ADOPTS the F&R. LEGAL STANDARDS Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “the court shall make a PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R that are not objected to. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. CONCLUSION No objections have been filed in response to the F&R. The F&R, ECF 62, is adopted in full. This Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF 39.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 4th day of March, 2024.

/s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge

PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND