(PS) Usher v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. et al, No. 2:2010cv00952 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/2/11 ORDERING the findings and recommendations 20 are ADOPTED IN FULL; dfts' requests for judicial notice 6 26 are GRANTED; In light of plfs pro se status, dfts motion to strike 14 pl tf's untimely opposition to defendants motion to dismiss is DENIED; dfts motion to dismiss 5 , originally filed on 4/26/10, is GRANTED pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and this action is DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice; CASE CLOSED. (Carlos, K)

Download PDF
(PS) Usher v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. et al Doc. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAYMOND USHER, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, vs. GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC., RELIABLE TRUST DEED SERVICES, VANDERBILT MORTGAGE & FINANCE INC., and DOES 1-10, 19 20 ORDER Defendants. 17 18 No. CIV S-10-0952 LKK DAD PS / Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On December 2, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days after being served with 23 the findings and recommendations. 24 Plaintiff filed timely objections in which he included an unnoticed motion for 25 leave to amend his first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 21.) Plaintiff also filed a proposed 26 second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 22.) Defendant Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. filed 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 a timely reply to plaintiff’s objections together with opposition to plaintiff’s unnoticed motion. 2 (Doc. No. 23.) Defendants Reliable Trust Deed Services and Vanderbilt Mortgage & Finance, 3 Inc. joined in defendant Greenpoint’s reply and opposition, and also filed a request for judicial 4 notice of pleadings, orders, and other documents filed in other foreclosure cases filed by plaintiff 5 regarding additional properties. (Doc. Nos. 25 & 26.) Plaintiff filed an unauthorized reply to 6 defendants’ replies. (Doc. No. 28.) 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 8 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 9 file, including plaintiff’s motion to amend and proposed second amended complaint, the court 10 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 11 Plaintiff’s motion will be denied for the reasons set forth by the magistrate judge in support of his 12 recommendation that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted without leave to amend. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 2, 2010 (Doc. No. 20) are 15 adopted in full; 16 17 2. Defendants’ requests for judicial notice (Doc. Nos. 6 & 26) are granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201; 18 19 3. In light of plaintiff’s pro se status, defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. No. 14) plaintiff’s untimely opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied; 20 21 4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 5), originally filed on April 26, 2010, is granted pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and 22 23 5. This action is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. DATED: February 2, 2011. 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.