Vichai Vongsvirates v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.

Opinion

VICHAI VONGSVIRATES, ) No. 1:20-cv-00474-NONE-JLT ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. ) MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ) AND DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., et al., ) PREJUDICE Defendants. ) ) (Doc. No. 12) )

Vichai Vongsvirates seeks to proceed pro se and in forma pauperis in this action against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Rushmore Loan Management Services. On April 16, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismissed plaintiff’s initial complaint with leave to amend because plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support his claims. (Doc. No. 7.) On May 6, 2020, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 8.) However, the first amended complaint largely duplicated the initial filing, and the magistrate judge again found that plaintiff was unable to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, on July 8, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, his first amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice, and that plaintiff be provided fourteen days to file any objections to the recommendation. (Doc. No. 12.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained a warning that “failure to file objections within the specified wOAOe 4. OUT ET PAE VR MVOC to POMOC VOI ie yh Ove

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (Doc. No. 12 at 7) (citing Martinez v. Vist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) and Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014)). To date, no objections have been filed and the time period for doing so has expired. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley Unitec School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations are supported b the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 1. The findings and recommendations dated July 8, 2020 (Doc. No. 12) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; 3. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED; 4. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 9) is DISMISSED AS MOOT; and 5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this matter for the purposes of closure and to close this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. = 4 1g || Dated: _ August 6, 2020 Se 1 Looe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE