SFR Investment Pool 1, LLC v. NewRez LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 6 * * *

7 SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, Case No. 2:22-CV-195 JCM (BNW)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER

9 v.

10 NEWREZ LLC D/B/A SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, 11 Defendant(s). 12

13 Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler’s report and 14 recommendation (“R&R”). (ECF No. 111). She recommends that plaintiff’s motion to amend 15 by granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, she concludes that plaintiff should be granted 16 leave to amend its wrongful foreclosure claim but denied leave to amend its quiet title claim. See 17 (id.) 18 No objections were filed to the R&R. Thus, the court is not obligated to conduct a de 19 novo review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring courts to “make a de novo 20 determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is 21 made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“[T]he 22 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if 23 objection is made, but not otherwise.” (emphasis in original)). 24 Accordingly, 25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judge Weksler’s R&R 26 (ECF No. 111) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED, in full. 27 28 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 40) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with that recommendation. 3 DATED December 19, 2022. 4 □□□ ©. Aallan 5 UMITED, STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

es C. Mahan District Judge _2-