Summary
In Baldin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:12-CV-00648-AC, 2013 WL 6388499, at *7-8 (D. Or. Dec. 6, 2013), the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon distinguished between allegations of failure to correct misinformation and allegations of failure to conduct the investigation in accordance with the duties prescribed by section 1681s-2(b)(1).
Summary of this case from Linlor v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.Opinion
No. 3:12-cv-00648-AC
12-06-2013
OPINION AND ORDER
MOSMAN, J.,
Judge Acosta recommended [133] that Plaintiff Amy Baldin's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint be granted in part and denied in part. Neither party filed objections.
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. I am not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge; instead, I retain responsibility for making the final determination. I am required to review de novo those portions of the report or any specified findings or recommendations within it to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, I am not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether objections have been filed, in either case I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [133] as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge