PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

KEITH L. HAYES, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 3:15-CV-00651-PK 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Keith L. Hayes, PO Box 13676, Salem, OR 97309. Pro Se. 

Molly J. Henry, Keesal, Young & Logan, 1301 Fifth Ave, Ste 3300, Seattle, WA 98101. Of 

Attorneys for Defendant. 

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation in 

this case on August 28, 2015. Dkt. 9. Judge Papak recommended that Defendant Wells Fargo 

Bank N.A.’s (“Wells Fargo”) motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 5) be granted. 

Specifically, Judge Papak recommended that the Court dismiss with prejudice all three of 

Plaintiff Keith L. Hayes’s (“Hayes”) claims: (1) that Wells Fargo unlawfully disregarded his 
PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER 

homeowner’s assistance application in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. (“O.R.S.”) § 86.750;1

 (2) that 

Wells Fargo willfully, maliciously, negligently, and in bad faith breached its contract with 

Hayes; and (3) that Wells Fargo failed to meet the requirements of O.R.S. § 86.750 prior to the 

sale. 

Wells Fargo filed its motion for judgment on the pleadings on June 11, 2015. Dkt. 5. 

Wells Fargo could not reach Hayes by telephone as of June 11, 2015. Id. at 1-2. Hayes did not 

file a brief in response to Wells Fargo’s motion nor did he file any objections to Judge Papak’s 

Findings and Recommendation. 

Under 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’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). 

 1

 O.R.S. § 86.750 was amended and renumbered as O.R.S. § 86.774 in 2013. There is a 

scrivener’s error in the Findings and Recommendation, which notes that O.R.S. § 86.750 was 

amended and renumbered as O.R.S. § 86.752 in 2013. 

Hayes asserts that O.R.S. § 86.750 required Wells Fargo to consider his application for 

homeowner’s assistance. The 2010 version of the statute and the statute now in effect never 

mention an application for homeowner’s assistance. In 2010, however, O.R.S. § 86.750 

contained subsection (5), which was deleted on January 2, 2012. See S. 628, 75th Leg., Reg. 

Sess. (Or. 2009) (providing for the deletion of subsection (5)). Subsection (5) required that 

before a trustee conducted a sale, “the beneficiary or the beneficiary’s agent” shall file an 

affidavit “that states how the beneficiary or the beneficiary’s agent has complied with the 

provisions of section 3 (1) and (2), chapter 864, Oregon Laws 2009.” Section 3 of chapter 864 

was a temporary provision that required the beneficiary or beneficiary’s agent to review a 

homeowner’s loan modification form if a grantor returned such a form to the lender. Section 3 of 

chapter 864 became section 1 in chapter 40 of Oregon Laws 2010. Hayes likely refers to the 

requirements of section 3, chapter 864, Oregon Laws 2009, and section 1, chapter 40, Oregon 

Laws 2010, when he asserts that Wells Fargo violated O.R.S. § 86.750. 
PAGE 3 – OPINION AND ORDER 

If no party objects, 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’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but 

not otherwise”). 

Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the 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’s findings 

and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.” 

No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory 

Committee and reviews Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face 

of the record. No such error is apparent. The Court thus ADOPTS Judge Papak’s Findings and 

Recommendation. Dkt. 9. Wells Fargo’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 5) is 

GRANTED. Hayes’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 28th day of September, 2015. 

 /s/ Michael H. Simon 

Michael H. Simon 

 United States District Judge