Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01700/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01700-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Hamilton Mortgage Co., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1700-PHX-SMM (ECV)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging breach of contract against

Defendant. (Doc. 1.) This matter was assigned and litigated before Magistrate Judge

Edward C. Voss. (Doc. 7.) On April 3, 2012, Magistrate Judge Voss filed a Report and

Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. 14.) To date, no objections have been filed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court must

“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is

made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter

v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch.

Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s

factual findings; the Court then may decide the dispositive motion on the applicable law.

Case 2:11-cv-01700-ECV Document 15 Filed 05/09/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Campbell v. United States

Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)).

By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives its right to

challenge the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate Judge’s

legal conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455

(9th Cir. 1998) (failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be

weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187

(9th Cir. 1980)).

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, and no objections having been made by Defendants thereto, the Court

hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED approving, incorporating, and adopting the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss. (Doc. 14.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against

Defendant Hamilton Mortgage Company is GRANTED. (Doc. 12.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor

of Plaintiff Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and against Defendant Hamilton Mortgage

Company in the amount of $628,367.09. The Judgment shall earn interest at the annual

federal rate from the date of entry of this Judgment until paid in full.

DATED this 8th day of May, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01700-ECV Document 15 Filed 05/09/12 Page 2 of 2