Summary
finding that a debt collector made a sufficient showing that it employed procedures "reasonably adapted to avoid" sending a collection letter to the wrong person by using LexisNexis to determine a debtor's most recent address when the associated information matched identifying characteristics between the person and the alleged account holder, including the name and social security number
Summary of this case from Opico v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc.Opinion
Civil No. 10-6159-TC
12-08-2011
STEVEN WETZEL, Plaintiff, v. AFNI, INC., Defendant.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and Recommendation on October 20, 2011, in the above entitled case. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. .v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).
Plaintiff has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, given de novo review of Magistrate Judge Coffin's rulings.
I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation filed October 20, 2011, in its entirety. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (#12) is granted, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (#17) is denied. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE