Lawrence v. Paramount Residential Mortgage Group, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Oregon
• Decided: August 12, 2021
• Docket: 3:19-cv-02103-JR
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

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

Plaintiff,

v.

PARAMOUNT RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE GROUP, INC., Defendant.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation [43] on May 4, 2021, in which she recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [35] and deny Plaintiff's Rule 56(d)/Rule 56(f) Motion [39]. 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 [43]. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d)/Rule 56(f) Motion is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ____A_u_g_u_s_t_ 1_2__, _2_0_2_1______.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge