United States District Court, D. Oregon
DAVID E. GRAVES and JANE GRAVES, Plaintiffs,
CALIBER HOME LOAN, U.S. BANK TRUST NA, LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST, Defendants.
MICHAEL H. SIMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and
Recommendation in this case on February 7, 2019. ECF 26.
Magistrate Judge Acosta recommended that Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss (ECF 5) should be GRANTED and
Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the Court
may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party
files objections to a magistrate judge's findings and
recommendations, “the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” Id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
those portions of a magistrate judge's findings and
recommendations to which neither party has objected, the Act
does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no
indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to
require a district judge to review a magistrate's report
to which no objections are filed.”); United States.
v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en
banc) (holding that the court must review de novo
magistrate judge's findings and recommendations if
objection is made, “but not otherwise”). Although
in the absence of objections no review is required, the
Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by
the district judge sua sponte . . . under a de
novo or any other standard.” Thomas, 474
U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely
objection is filed, ” the Court review the magistrate
judge's recommendations for “clear error on the
face of the record.”
filed objections to Judge Acosta's F&R. ECF 28.
Plaintiffs raise four objections to the F&R. First,
Plaintiffs argue that a dismissal of claims is improper in an
action to quiet title, and that such actions must result in a
ruling on the title. This is not a correct understanding of
the law. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) applies to
all civil actions in federal court, and therefore a motion to
dismiss is procedurally proper in an action to quiet title if
the plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Plaintiffs next argue, for the first time, that
“Beneficial of Washington Inc.” did not perfect
its interest under “ORS752(1).” The Court cannot
ascertain which provision of Chapter 752 of the Oregon
Revised Statutes (relating to Professional Liability Funds)
Plaintiffs intend to cite. Oregon law requires, however, that
“any challenges to a non-judicial foreclosure (other
than those based on notice) be made before  the
trustee's sale.” Mikityuk v. Nw. Tr. Servs.,
Inc., 952 F.Supp.2d 958, 963 (D. Or. 2013). Thus,
Plaintiff's challenge to the legitimacy of
“Beneficial of Washington Inc.” comes too late.
also allege that the case should have been stayed by a
November 9, 2018 court order pending an Alternative Dispute
Resolution (“ADR”) process. The November 9, 2018
order was a scheduling order that extended the relevant
deadlines in this case. Although the order imposed a February
12, 2019 deadline for the parties to confer as to an ADR and
file an ADR report, the order did not require that the
parties participate in an ADR. This objection is without
merit. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the recommendation to
grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismiss
Plaintiffs' claims is against public policy. Plaintiffs
do not identify a strong public policy interest that is
violated by a court's order dismissing a complaint
because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Additionally, dismissal of a complaint
that fails to state a claim, rather than allowing a meritless
claim to proceed to discovery and trial, furthers the public
policy of securing “just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding.”
Court has reviewed de novo those portions of
Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation to
which Plaintiffs have objected, as well as Plaintiffs'
objections and Defendants' response. The Court agrees
with Magistrate Judge Acosta's reasoning regarding the
merits of Plaintiffs' claims and ADOPTS those portions of
the Findings and Recommendation.
those portions of Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and
Recommendation to which neither party has objected, this
Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee
and reviews those matters for clear error on the face of the
record. No. such error is apparent.
Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's
Findings and Recommendation, ECF 26. Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss (ECF 5) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' claims are
dismissed with prejudice.