Filed: Dec. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CORMAC J. CARNEY , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, Defendants Elizabeth Schneider and Bridget Kelly's Motion to Dismiss ("Schneider Motion," ECF No. 6), Defendants Johnnie L. Baker and Jim Husen's Motion to Dismiss ("Baker Motion," ECF No. 12), Defendants the Honorable Christopher B. Harmon and Superior Court of California's Motion to Dismiss ("Harmon Motion," E
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CORMAC J. CARNEY , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, Defendants Elizabeth Schneider and Bridget Kelly's Motion to Dismiss ("Schneider Motion," ECF No. 6), Defendants Johnnie L. Baker and Jim Husen's Motion to Dismiss ("Baker Motion," ECF No. 12), Defendants the Honorable Christopher B. Harmon and Superior Court of California's Motion to Dismiss ("Harmon Motion," EC..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CORMAC J. CARNEY, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, Defendants Elizabeth Schneider and Bridget Kelly's Motion to Dismiss ("Schneider Motion," ECF No. 6), Defendants Johnnie L. Baker and Jim Husen's Motion to Dismiss ("Baker Motion," ECF No. 12), Defendants the Honorable Christopher B. Harmon and Superior Court of California's Motion to Dismiss ("Harmon Motion," ECF No. 15), Defendant Ticor Title Company's Motion to Dismiss ("Ticor Motion," ECF No. 20), Defendants Ping Li, Lingchong Chen, and Houling Chen's Motion to Dismiss ("Chen Motion," ECF No. 34), the other records on file herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 67), and Plaintiff's Objections (ECF Nos. 69, 70). After conducting a de novo review of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Objections were directed, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.
The Court specifically addresses Plaintiff's Objections regarding the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction to issue the Report and Recommendation. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that on June 21, 2018, she objected to having a Magistrate Judge assigned to her lawsuit (ECF No. 44), and therefore the Report and Recommendation is void. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff did not consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to a Magistrate Judge conducting all proceedings in her case, including trial and entry of final Judgment. Notwithstanding, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) permits a District Judge — without any party's consent — to designate a Magistrate Judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the Court. In this case, the Court originally referred all pretrial proceedings to Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish (ECF No. 4), and then transferred the case to Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero (ECF No. 39). When a District Judge refers a pretrial matter to a Magistrate Judge, parties are permitted to file objections to any proposed findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). However, parties may not object to the District Judge's referral of pretrial matters to the Magistrate Judge. See id.
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED;
2. The Harmon and Chen Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED to the extent they seek dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine;
3. The Schneider, Baker, and Ticor Motions to Dismiss are DENIED as moot; and
4. Judgment shall be ENTERED dismissing the entire action with prejudice.
