Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00952/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00952-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

RAYMOND USHER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-0952 LKK DAD PS

vs.

GREENPOINT MORTGAGE

FUNDING, INC., RELIABLE TRUST

DEED SERVICES, VANDERBILT

MORTGAGE & FINANCE INC.,

and DOES 1-10, ORDER

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On December 2, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

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

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days after being served with

the findings and recommendations.

Plaintiff filed timely objections in which he included an unnoticed motion for

leave to amend his first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 21.) Plaintiff also filed a proposed

second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 22.) Defendant Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. filed

Case 2:10-cv-00952-GEB-CKD Document 30 Filed 02/02/11 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

a timely reply to plaintiff’s objections together with opposition to plaintiff’s unnoticed motion. 

(Doc. No. 23.) Defendants Reliable Trust Deed Services and Vanderbilt Mortgage & Finance,

Inc. joined in defendant Greenpoint’s reply and opposition, and also filed a request for judicial

notice of pleadings, orders, and other documents filed in other foreclosure cases filed by plaintiff

regarding additional properties. (Doc. Nos. 25 & 26.) Plaintiff filed an unauthorized reply to

defendants’ replies. (Doc. No. 28.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, including plaintiff’s motion to amend and proposed second amended complaint, the court

finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied for the reasons set forth by the magistrate judge in support of his

recommendation that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted without leave to amend.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 2, 2010 (Doc. No. 20) are

adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ requests for judicial notice (Doc. Nos. 6 & 26) are granted

pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201;

3. In light of plaintiff’s pro se status, defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. No. 14)

plaintiff’s untimely opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied;

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 5), originally filed on April 26, 2010,

is granted pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and

5. This action is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.

DATED: February 2, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00952-GEB-CKD Document 30 Filed 02/02/11 Page 2 of 2