Vichai Vongsvirates v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VICHAI VONGSVIRATES, ) No. 1:20-cv-00474-NONE-JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. ) MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ) AND DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT 14 WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., et al., ) PREJUDICE 15 Defendants. ) ) (Doc. No. 12) 16 ) 17 Vichai Vongsvirates seeks to proceed pro se and in forma pauperis in this action against Wells 18 Fargo Bank, N.A. and Rushmore Loan Management Services. On April 16, 2020, the assigned 19 magistrate judge screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(e)(2) and dismissed plaintiff’s initial complaint with leave to amend because plaintiff failed to 21 allege facts sufficient to support his claims. (Doc. No. 7.) On May 6, 2020, plaintiff filed a first 22 amended complaint. (Doc. No. 8.) However, the first amended complaint largely duplicated the 23 initial filing, and the magistrate judge again found that plaintiff was unable to state a claim upon which 24 relief may be granted. Therefore, on July 8, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and 25 recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, his 26 first amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice, and that plaintiff be provided fourteen days 27 to file any objections to the recommendation. (Doc. No. 12.) The findings and recommendations 28 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 1 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (Doc. No. 12 at 7) (citing Martinez v. 2 || Vist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) and Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014)). To 3 || date, no objections have been filed and the time period for doing so has expired. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley Unitec 5 || School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case 6 || Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations are supported b 7 || the record and proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The findings and recommendations dated July 8, 2020 (Doc. No. 12) are ADOPTED 10 IN FULL; 11 2. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; 12 3. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED; 13 4. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 9) is DISMISSED AS MOOT; and 14 5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this matter for the 15 purposes of closure and to close this action. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. = 4 1g || Dated: _ August 6, 2020 Se 1 Looe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28