Schneider v. Bank of America N.A et al

Filing 177

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/5/2015 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 159 are ADOPTED; Plaintiff's 149 Motion for Default Judgment against BANA, Balboa and FHLMC, ECFN is DENIED; the Motion for a clerk's entry of the default of BANA, Balboa and FHLMC is DENIED; and Bank of America Mortgage and Home Retention Group are DISMISSED pursuant to FRCP 4(m) as well as for plaintiff's failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

No. 2:11-cv-2953-JAM-EFB PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

BANK OF AMERICA N.A.; BANK OF
AMERICA MORTGAGE, BANK OF
AMERICA HOME LOANS SERVICING
LP, BALBOA INSURANCE CO., HOME
RETENTION GROUP, QUALITY
RETENTION GROUP, QUALITY LOAN
SERVICE CORP., CLIFF COLER, DOES
1-40,
Defendants.

19
20
21

On November 18, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

22

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

23

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections December

24

18, 2014, and they were considered by the undersigned.1

25
26
27
28

1

In his objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, plaintiff
argues that it is unfair and unjust to dismiss defendants Bank of America Mortgage and Home
Retention Group pursuant to Rule 4(m) as well as for failure to prosecute and to comply with
court orders. ECF No. 166 at 2. Plaintiff’s objections, however, fail to demonstrate that he
properly effected service of process of his second amended complaint on these defendants in the
time prescribed by Rule 4(m). Accordingly, the court finds that it proper to adopt the magistrate
1

1

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which

2

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

3

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As

4

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court

5

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United

6

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

7

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

8

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against BANA, Balboa, and FHLMC, ECFN
146, is denied
2. The motion for a clerk’s entry of the default of BANA, Balboa, and FHLMC, ECF No.
149, is denied; and
3. Bank of America Mortgage and Home Retention Group are dismissed pursuant to

16

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) as well as for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and comply

17

with court orders.

18

DATED: March 5, 2015

19

/s/ John A. Mendez_______________________

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

judge’s recommendation that these defendants be dismissed.
2