From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baldin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Dec 6, 2013
No. 3:12-cv-00648-AC (D. Or. Dec. 6, 2013)

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

AMY BALDIN, an individual and as sole manager of LUGANO PROPERTIES 4, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a National Bank registered to do business in Oregon, and WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, a division of WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants.


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


Summaries of

Baldin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Dec 6, 2013
No. 3:12-cv-00648-AC (D. Or. Dec. 6, 2013)

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.
Case details for

Baldin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Case Details

Full title:AMY BALDIN, an individual and as sole manager of LUGANO PROPERTIES 4, LLC…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

Date published: Dec 6, 2013

Citations

No. 3:12-cv-00648-AC (D. Or. Dec. 6, 2013)

Citing Cases

Remington v. Equifax Consumer Servs.

Congress enacted FCRA "to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency in the banking…

Phoneternet, LLC v. LexisNexis Risk Sols.

After considering the factors in Humble Sand & Gravel, Incorporated v. Gomez as discussed by the Texas…