(PS) Aspenlind v. Spartan Mortgage Services et al, No. 2:2011cv00366 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 30 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 12/16/11 ORDERING that defendants Bruce Sutherland, Richard H. Gray and Seville Equities, LLC's 11 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is GRANT ED with prejudice and these defendants are dismissed with prejudice; the following claims are dismissed with prejudice against all defendants: RICO (nineteenth cause of action), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Twenty-second cause of action), 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (Twenty-third Cause of Action), and 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (Twenty-fourth Cause of Action). (Benson, A.)
Download PDF
(PS) Aspenlind v. Spartan Mortgage Services et al Doc. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LARS ASPENLIND, 11 Plaintiff, 12 CIV S-11-0366 MCE GGH PS vs. 13 14 SPARTAN MORTGAGE SERVICES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 __________________________________/ 17 ORDER On November 14, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 18 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 20 Accordingly, the court presumes 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 Findings and Recommendations in full. 26 \\\\ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations filed November 14, 2011, are ADOPTED and 3 1. The motion to dismiss by defendants Seville Equities, LLC, Sutherland, and 4 Gray, filed March 14, 2011, (dkt. # 11), is granted and these defendants are dismissed with 5 prejudice. 6 2. The following claims are dismissed with prejudice against all defendants: 7 RICO (nineteenth cause of action), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Twenty-second cause of action), 42 U.S.C. 8 § 1985 (Twenty-third Cause of Action), and 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (Twenty-fourth Cause of Action). 9 Dated: December 16, 2011 10 11 12 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2