Becker et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Inc. et al

Filing 141

ORDER adopting 130 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 1/10/13: Plaintiff's "Motion for Preliminary Injunction" 126 , 129 is denied.To the extent plaintiff intends his "Motion for Prelimin ary Injunction" to serve as a motion to amend his pleadings, the motion is procedurally improper and denied without prejudice.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.(Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DENNLY R. BECKER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11

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

vs.

12
13

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

14

Defendants.
__________________________________/

ORDER

15
On October 23, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
16
which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings
17

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.1

18
Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v.
19
United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are
20
reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.
21
1983).
22
The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,
23
concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.
24
25
26

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

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

2

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

3

are ADOPTED;

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

prejudice; and

8
9
10

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.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2