Peters v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al.

Filing 42

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/22/2017 ORDERING that the 35 findings and recommendations are ADOPTED in full. Plaintiff's 6 Motion to Remand is DENIED. Defendant's 3 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARK R. PETERS,

12
13
14

No. 2:16-cv-0834 JAM AC (PS)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

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

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per. The matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21).

19

On December 28, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

20

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

21

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 35.

22

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

23

ECF No. 36. Plaintiff has filed a reply to Defendant’s objections. ECF No. 41.

24

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

25

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

26

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

27

analysis.

28

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1

1
2

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 28, 2016 (ECF No. 35), are
adopted in full;

3

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 6) is denied; and

4

3. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3) is denied.

5

DATED: March 22, 2017

6

/s/ John A. Mendez_________________________

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2