(PS) Sharma v. HSI Asset Loan Obligation Trust 2007-1 ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VINOD SHARMA AND VINJAY L. No. 2:20-cv-921-JAM-KJN (PS) SHARMA, 12 ORDER Plaintiffs, 13 (ECF No. 37) v. 14 HSI ASSET LOAN OBLIGATION 15 TRUST 2001-1, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On February 18, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 19 37), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 20 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were 21 filed. Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 22 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 23 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 24 1983). 25 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 26 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 37) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 3 2. This case is REMANDED to the Superior Court, County of Sacramento; and 4 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 5 6 Dated: March 29, 2022 /s/ John A. Mendez 7 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28