From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Bank of Am.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 14, 2022
1:21-cv-848-AWI-HBK (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2022)

Opinion

1:21-cv-848-AWI-HBK

10-14-2022

APRIL PREMO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(DOC. NOS. 31, 31-1, 43)

Plaintiff April Premo Williams initiated this action proceeding pro se by filing a Complaint against Bank of America, N.A. Federal National Mortgage Association (dba Fannie Mae), Hugh Frater, Brian Moynihan, Mark Calabria, and Adrianna Rodriquez. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in form pauperis was granted. Doc. No. 3. The matter was referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302.

On August 23, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Doc. No. 9. On December 17, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a findings and recommendations recommending the District Court grant the Motion to Dismiss as to Defendants Hugh Frater, Brian Moynihan, and Adrianna Rodriquez without leave to amend and grant the Motion to Dismiss as to Defendants Bank of America and Fannie Mae with leave to amend. Doc. No. 14. On March 28, 2022, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in full and allowed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than April 25, 2022. Doc. No. 22. Plaintiff filed her operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) as to Defendants Bank of America and Fannie Mae on April 22, 2022. Doc. No. 30.

On May 6, 2022, Defendants Bank of America and Fannie Mae filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC. Doc. No. 31. The District Court referred the Motion to the assigned Magistrate Judge. Doc. No. 35. On August 5, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a findings and recommendations recommending the District Court (1) grant Defendants' request for judicial notice as to Exhibits A and B and take notice of Exhibits C and D by way of the doctrine of incorporation by reference, and (2) grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's FAC with prejudice. Doc. No. 43. The findings and recommendations served on Plaintiff contained notice that Objections to the findings and recommendations were due within fourteen days and that the Objections document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Id. at 12. On August 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Jury Trial to Determine Plaintiff Disability and Whether Plaintiff Should be Appointed an Attorney by the U.S. District Court, Request Jury Trial for Case Concerning Bank of America and Fannie Mae.” Doc. No. 44.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 5, 2022 (Doc. No. 43) are adopted in full.

2. Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice (Doc. No. 31-1) as to Exhibits A, B, C, and D is granted.

3. The motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Defendants Bank of America and Fannie Mae (Doc. No. 31) is granted without leave to amend.

4. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Williams v. Bank of Am.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 14, 2022
1:21-cv-848-AWI-HBK (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2022)
Case details for

Williams v. Bank of Am.

Case Details

Full title:APRIL PREMO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, FEDERAL NATIONAL…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 14, 2022

Citations

1:21-cv-848-AWI-HBK (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2022)