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

Filing 29

ORDER: Adopting Report and Recommendation 25 ; Granting Motion to Dismiss 3 ; Granting Motion to Dismiss 6 ; Denying Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 20 ; Denying as Moot Motion to Continue 27 ; Denying as Moot all other pending Motions. Ordered & Signed on 4/28/11 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (See attached pdf for complete information.) (kf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MEDFORD DIVISION

JAY BRIAN LONGLEY,

Civ. No. 11-3009-CL
Plaintiff,

ORDER

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

PANNER, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and
Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court.
U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B),

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

objections have been filed,
principles de novo.

See 28

Although no

this court reviews the legal

See Lorin Corp. v Goto & Co.( Ltd.,

700 F.2d

1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1983).
After reviewing the legal issues de novo,

I agree with

Magistrate Judge Clarke that plaintiff has failed to state claims

1 -

ORDER

for quiet title, slander of title, RICO violations, or fraud or
I

civil conspiracy.

I also agree that plaintiff should be allowed

to file an amended complaint, except as to the RICO claim, which
must be dismissed with prejudice.
CONCLUSION

Magistrate 'Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#25)
adopted.

Defendants' motions to dismiss

(##3,

is

6) are granted

without prejudice except as to the RICO claim, which is dismissed
with prejudice; plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment
(#20)

is denied; and all other pending motions are denied as moot.

Plaintiff's motion for continuance (#27)

is denied as moot.

Plaintiff has until May 30, 2011 to file an amended complaint,
following the guidance of the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

zt3

day of April, 2011.

OWEN M. PANNER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2 - ORDER