Schneider v. Bank of America N.A et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER,
No. 2:11-cv-2953-JAM-EFB PS
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
On November 18, 2014, 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. Plaintiff filed objections December
18, 2014, and they were considered by the undersigned.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
This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which
objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore
Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As
to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court
assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. 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 Sch. 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.
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
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) as well as for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and comply
with court orders.
DATED: March 5, 2015
/s/ John A. Mendez_______________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
judge’s recommendation that these defendants be dismissed.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?