From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fowler v. ReconTrust Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jun 29, 2012
1:11-CV-3102-CL (D. Or. Jun. 29, 2012)

Opinion

1:11-CV-3102-CL

06-29-2012

GARY B. FOWLER, Plaintiff, v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, Defendant.


ORDER

PANNER, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation (#17), and the matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Although no objections have been filed, I review the legal principles de novo. See Lorin Corp. v Goto & Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1983). I conclude the Report is correct.

I adopt Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#18). Plaintiff's Bill of Costs (#10) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________

OWEN M. PANNER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Fowler v. ReconTrust Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jun 29, 2012
1:11-CV-3102-CL (D. Or. Jun. 29, 2012)
Case details for

Fowler v. ReconTrust Co.

Case Details

Full title:GARY B. FOWLER, Plaintiff, v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Jun 29, 2012

Citations

1:11-CV-3102-CL (D. Or. Jun. 29, 2012)

Citing Cases

Murphy v. First Horizon Home Loan

The Court, therefore, declines to award attorneys' fees under the catalyst theory. See Laak v. Recontrust…