Buy This Entire Record For
Baldin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
United States District Court, Ninth Circuit
December 6, 2013
AMY BALDIN, an individual and as sole manager of LUGANO PROPERTIES 4, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff,
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
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge.
Judge Acosta recommended  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.
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 ...