Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00768/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00768-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 12:22 Securities Fraud

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAULINE ASPENLIND,

Plaintiff, 2:07-cv-0768-GEB-EFB-PS

vs.

AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY, 

a California Corporation, 

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On February 15, 2008, 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 ten days. Plaintiff filed objections on

February 25, 2008, defendant filed a reply to plaintiff’s objections on March 6, 2008, 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 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

Case 2:07-cv-00768-GEB-EFB Document 17 Filed 03/13/08 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

2

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 proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed February 15, 2008, are

ADOPTED; 

2. Defendant’s May 14, 2007, Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is granted without

leave to amend; and, 

3. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

Dated: March 12, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-00768-GEB-EFB Document 17 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 2