Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00463/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00463-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

MARC EDWARD BOWMAN,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-06-0463 DFL EFB PS

vs.

ASSOCIATES HOME EQUITY

SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On December 19, 2006, 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

January 5, 2007, defendant CitiFinancial Mortgage filed a response to plaintiff’s objections, and

plaintiff filed a reply on February 1, 2007, 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 2:06-cv-00463-JAM-EFB Document 23 Filed 03/20/07 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 December 19, 2006, are

ADOPTED; and

2. Plaintiff’s third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty and fifth cause of

action for conversion are dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b).

DATED: March 19, 2007

/s/ David F. Levi 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00463-JAM-EFB Document 23 Filed 03/20/07 Page 2 of 2