Schneider v. Bank of America N.A et al

Filing 352

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/12/2017 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 347 are ADOPTED in FULL; Plaintiff's 297 Motion for New Trial is DENIED; and Defendant's 349 Motion to extend time to file a response to plaintiff's objections is DENIED as unnecessary. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

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 COMPANY;
HOME RETENTION GROUP; QUALITY
LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION;
CLIFF COLER; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive,
Defendants.

20
21

On September 11, 2017, 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 on

24

September 25, 2017, defendant timely filed a response to plaintiff’s objections on October 5,

25

2017, and those filings were considered by the undersigned.

26

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

27

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

28

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

7

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

8

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed September 11, 2017, are adopted;

9

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial (ECF No. 297) is denied; and

10

3. Defendant’s motion to extend the time to file a response to plaintiff’s objections (ECF

11

No. 349) is denied as unnecessary.

12

DATED: 10/12/2017

13
/s/ John A. Mendez
JOHN A. MENDEZ
United States District Court Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2