Cooley v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al

Filing 9

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 2/26/16 Recommending that this Action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction re 1 Complaint filed by Frederick Marc Cooley. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez. Objections to F&R due within fourteen days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FREDERICK COOLEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-0113 JAM CKD PS

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. In this action, plaintiff

17
18

alleges claims on behalf of the estate of Frederick Grant Cooley relating to a reverse mortgage

19

entered into by decedent Frederick Grant Cooley in 2005. The complaint fails to set forth a basis

20

for subject matter jurisdiction.

21

By order filed January 25, 2016, plaintiff was ordered to show cause no later than

22

February 11, 2016 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1

23

Plaintiff has filed a response to the order to show cause in which he alleges the basis of subject

24

matter jurisdiction is fraud. Plaintiff’s assertion fails to establish a proper basis for subject matter

25

/////

26

1

27
28

Plaintiff was also ordered to submit the probate letters of administration and obtain counsel in
order to prosecute this action on behalf of the estate. Plaintiff failed to comply with these orders.
Plaintiff also failed to show why this action, on behalf of the estate, is not barred by the statute of
limitations.
1

1

jurisdiction. There being no evident basis for subject matter jurisdiction, the court will

2

recommend that this action be dismissed.

3
4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

5

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

6

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

7

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

8

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

9

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

10

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

11

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

12

Dated: February 26, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16

4 cooley0113.nosmj.57

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