From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schneider v. Bank of America N.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 5, 2015
No. 2:11-cv-2953-JAM-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2015)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-2953-JAM-EFB PS

03-05-2015

CHISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA MORTGAGE, BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS SERVICING LP, BALBOA INSURANCE CO., HOME RETENTION GROUP, QUALITY RETENTION GROUP, QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP., CLIFF COLER, DOES 1-40, Defendants.


ORDER

On November 18, 2014, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections December 18, 2014, and they were considered by the undersigned.

In his objections to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, plaintiff argues that it is unfair and unjust to dismiss defendants Bank of America Mortgage and Home Retention Group pursuant to Rule 4(m) as well as for failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders. ECF No. 166 at 2. Plaintiff's objections, however, fail to demonstrate that he properly effected service of process of his second amended complaint on these defendants in the time prescribed by Rule 4(m). Accordingly, the court finds that it proper to adopt the magistrate judge's recommendation that these defendants be dismissed.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against BANA, Balboa, and FHLMC, ECFN 146, is denied

2. The motion for a clerk's entry of the default of BANA, Balboa, and FHLMC, ECF No. 149, is denied; and

3. Bank of America Mortgage and Home Retention Group are dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) as well as for plaintiffs failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. DATED: March 5, 2015

/s/ John A. Mendez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE


Summaries of

Schneider v. Bank of America N.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 5, 2015
No. 2:11-cv-2953-JAM-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2015)
Case details for

Schneider v. Bank of America N.A.

Case Details

Full title:CHISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A.; BANK OF…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 5, 2015

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-2953-JAM-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2015)