(PS) Federal National Mortgage Association v. Barker, No. 2:2009cv01770 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: AMENDED 22 ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 08/25/09 ORDERING that the court's 22 08/24/09 order adopting the 08/07/09 F&Rs and granting plf's motion to remand is corrected as indica ted; the 21 08/07/09 F&Rs are adopted in full; plf's 14 motion to remand is granted; this matter is remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Butte; and all other pending motions are denied for lack of jurisdiction. (Benson, A.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Federal National Mortgage Association v. Barker Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 No. CIV S-09-1770-GEB-CMK JASON BARKER, 15 AMENDED ORDER Defendant. 16 / 17 This civil matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to an 18 Eastern District of California local rule. On August 7, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed findings 19 and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that 20 the parties may file objections within a specified time. On August 24, 2009, the court issued an 21 order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. However, that order 22 incorrectly stated that no objection had been filed. Defendant filed an objection on August 21, 23 2009, which was not entered on the docket until the same day the August 24 Order was filed. 24 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), the court issues this order 25 amending the August 24 Order, since Defendant’s objection filed August 21, 2009 was recently 26 received and reviewed. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 2 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 3 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 4 proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The court’s August 24, 2009, order adopting the findings and 7 recommendations filed August 7, 2009, and granting Plaintiff’s motion to remand is corrected as 8 addressed above; 9 2. The findings and recommendations filed August 7, 2009, are adopted in 11 3. Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 14) is granted; 12 4. This matter is remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of 5. All other pending motions are denied for lack of jurisdiction. 10 13 14 15 full; Butte; and Dated: August 25, 2009 16 17 18 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
