Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01097/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01097-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

JAMES L. MACKLIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-1097-MCE-KJN

ORDER

On September 8, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF. 

No. 65) 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. On September 22, 2014, 

plaintiffs filed objections to the proposed findings and recommendations (ECF. No. 72). On 

October 9, 2014, defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust (ECF No. 77) and defendant Quality 

Loan Services Corporation (ECF No. 78) each filed a response to plaintiff’s objections, 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), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); 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 

Case 2:10-cv-01097-MCE-KJN Document 86 Filed 12/29/14 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

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 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 September 8, 2014, are 

ADOPTED;

2. Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., and 

Quality Loan Service Corporation’s motions to dismiss the second amended complaint (ECF Nos. 

45, 49) are GRANTED; and

3. Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., and 

Quality Loan Service Corporation are DISMISSED from this action WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED: December 24, 2014 

Case 2:10-cv-01097-MCE-KJN Document 86 Filed 12/29/14 Page 2 of 2