Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02799/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02799-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNLY R. BECKER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV-S-10-2799-LKK-KJN-PS

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, INC. et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On October 23, 2012, 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 fourteen days. No objections were filed.1

 Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. 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. 

1

 Plaintiff filed a document styled as a “Motion for Reconsideration,” which purported to

challenge the findings and recommendations. (Dkt. No. 133.) However, plaintiff withdrew the

motion. (Dkt. No. 136.)

1

Case 2:10-cv-02799-TLN-KJN Document 141 Filed 01/10/13 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

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed October 23, 2012 (Dkt. No. 130),

are ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Preliminary Injunction” (Dkt. Nos. 126, 129) is denied;

3. To the extent plaintiff intends his “Motion for Preliminary Injunction” to serve as a

motion to amend his pleadings, the motion is procedurally improper and denied without

prejudice; and

4. To the extent plaintiff requests the court “accept plaintiff’s request for RJN” at Docket

Number 43, the request is denied for the same reasons set forth above.

DATED: January 10, 2013.

2

Case 2:10-cv-02799-TLN-KJN Document 141 Filed 01/10/13 Page 2 of 2