Sussman v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MICHAEL C. SUSSMAN,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
Case No. 2:16-cv-01094-JNP-PMW
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
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
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?