Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02953/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02953-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BANK OF AMERICA N.A.; 

FHLMCLBAC 173 a.k.a. FEDERAL 

HOMELOAN MORTGAGE 

CORPORATION(FREDDIE MAC); BAC 

HOME LOANSSERVICING LP; 

BALBOA INSURANCECO.; BANK OF 

AMERICAMORTGAGE; QUALITY 

LOANSERVICE CORP.; HOME 

RETENTIONGROUP, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-2953-JAM-EFB PS 

ORDER 

On February 27, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. After an extension of time, plaintiff 

filed objections on March 20, 2015, and they were considered by the undersigned. 

 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 

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), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court 

Case 2:11-cv-02953-JAM-EFB Document 214 Filed 06/10/15 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

assumes its correctness and decides the motions 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 Sch. 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 proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed February 27, 2015, are 

ADOPTED; 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the second amended complaint, ECF No. 168, is denied. 

DATED: June 9, 2015 

 /s/ John A. Mendez_________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 2:11-cv-02953-JAM-EFB Document 214 Filed 06/10/15 Page 2 of 2