(PS) Love v. Tri-Counties Bank

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 03/11/25 ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations IN FULL; DENYING 18 Motion for leave to amend her opposition to the motion to dismiss AS MOOT; and DISMISSING 1 Complaint without leave to amend. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk KML)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARY LOVE,

12
13
14

No. 2:24-cv-01823-TLN-CSK
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
TRI-COUNTIES BANK,

15

Defendant.

16
17

On February 7, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

18

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

19

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 16) On February 21,

20

2025, and February 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

21

(ECF Nos. 17, 19). On February 27, 2025, Defendant filed a reply to Plaintiff’s objections. (ECF

22

No. 19.) The Court has considered these filings in its review of the findings and

23

recommendations.

24

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

25

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

26

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d

27

930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection

28

has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law.
1

1

See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s

2

conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d

3

452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and

4

recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. The findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 16), are ADOPTED IN FULL;

7

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her opposition to the motion to dismiss, (ECF

8

No. 18), is DENIED as moot;

9

3. Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 1), is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and

10

4. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case.

11

DATED: March 11, 2025

12
13
14
15

___________________________________
TROY L. NUNLEY
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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