From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 11, 2020
No. 2:19-cv-260-MCE-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:19-cv-260-MCE-KJN PS

02-11-2020

SUZANNE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF. Nos. 14, 21)

On December 20, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 21), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On January 9, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 22), which have been considered by the court.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 21) are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

4. Leave to Amend Plaintiff's HBOR Claim (see ECF No. 10 at pp. 6-7) is WITHDRAWN;

5. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 20) is DENIED AS MOOT; and

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 11, 2020

/s/_________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 11, 2020
No. 2:19-cv-260-MCE-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2020)
Case details for

Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Case Details

Full title:SUZANNE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Feb 11, 2020

Citations

No. 2:19-cv-260-MCE-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2020)