Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00576/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00576-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Citibank Card
Defendant
Citibank West
Defendant
Citicorp Credit Services, Inc
Defendant
Citigroup
Defendant
Ronald B. McNearney
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

RONALD B. MCNEARNEY,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-06-576 WBS EFB PS

vs.

CITICORP CREDIT SERVICES, INC.,

dba CITIBANK WEST, CITIBANK CARD,

CITIGROUP and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On July 25, 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. On August 29, 2006, plaintiff requested

more time to file objections. Defendants filed an objection to that request. By order filed

September 8, 2006, plaintiff was granted an additional ten days to file objections. That order

cautioned plaintiff that no further extensions would be granted. Plaintiff has failed to file any

objections.

 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). 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.

Case 2:06-cv-00576-WBS-EFB Document 24 Filed 09/29/06 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

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 insofar as

they deal with plaintiff’s federal claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et

seq.). With regard to plaintiffs supplemental state law claims, the court declines to exercise

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and (c).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed July 25, 2006, are

ADOPTED as modified above; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed April 7, 2006 and amended April 26,

2006, is granted and plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED; and

3. Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s May 16, 2006 “First Joint Status

Report” is denied as moot.

DATED: September 28, 2006

_______________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00576-WBS-EFB Document 24 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2