Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00260/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00260-4/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

SUZANNE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

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

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 

Case 2:19-cv-00260-MCE-KJN Document 24 Filed 02/11/20 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

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WITHDRAWN;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

Case 2:19-cv-00260-MCE-KJN Document 24 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 2