(PS) Kuder v. Haas et al, No. 2:2010cv00404 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 1/31/11. Plaintiff's claims asserted against defendants JP Morgan Chase, N.A. and California Reconveyance Company are dismissed with prejudice; and these dfts are DISMISSSED from this action. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
(PS) Kuder v. Haas et al Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GLENN-MICHAEL KUDER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:10-cv-00404-MCE-KJN-PS vs. ORDER TAMMY HAAS, in her official and private capacity, et al., 15 16 Defendants. _____________________________________/ 17 On December 2, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 18 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 19 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 20 Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 21 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 22 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 23 1983). 24 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 25 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 26 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed December 2, 2010, are 3 4 ADOPTED; and 2. Plaintiff’s claims asserted against defendants JP Morgan Chase, N.A. and California 5 Reconveyance Company are dismissed with prejudice, and JP Morgan Chase, N.A. and 6 California Reconveyance Company are dismissed from this action. 7 Dated: January 31, 2011 8 9 10 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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.