Lawrence v. Paramount Residential Mortgage Group, Inc.

District Court, D. Oregon·Decided November 10, 2020·No. 3:19-cv-02103-JR·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MARCKIA LAWRENCE, No. 3:19-cv-02103-JR

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

PARAMOUNT RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE GROUP, INC., Defendant.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation [22] on July 20, 2020, in which she recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [13] and Request for Judicial Notice [14]. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. Pl. Obj., ECF 24. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & 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 there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. CONCLUSION The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation [22]. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Request for Judicial Notice is granted. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: __N__o_v_e_m__b_e_r_ 1_0_,_ 2__0_2_0____.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lawrence v. Paramount Residential Mortgage Group, Inc., (D. Or. 2020).

Lawrence v. Paramount Residential Mortgage Group, Inc. (Lawrence v. Paramount Residential Mortgage Group, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dawson v. Marshall
561 F.3d 930 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)