Sussman v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Report and Recommendation 16 is ADOPTED IN FULL; Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 9 is GRANTED; All claims alleged in Plaintiff's complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jill N. Parrish on 9/19/17. (dla)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH MICHAEL C. SUSSMAN, Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v. Case No. 2:16-cv-01094-JNP-PMW WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant. District Judge Jill N. Parrish Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner Plaintiff Michael C. Sussman, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. on October 27, 2016. Sussman brought various claims against Wells Fargo because Wells Fargo debited his bank account for $1042.00 along with a $100.00 bank fee on December 14, 2011. The Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On January 1, 2017, Wells Fargo filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 9). The matter was fully briefed, and after review of the parties’ briefings, Judge Warner issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16) advising that this Court grant the Motion to Dismiss. The Report and Recommendation specified that the parties should file objections within fourteen days of service, and the time for objecting has now passed. Based on the Court’s de novo review of the record, the relevant legal authority, and the Report and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation is a correct application of the law to the facts. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16) is ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED; 3. All claims alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. DATED September 19, 2017. _____________________________ Judge Jill N. Parrish United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?