ZELHOFER v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 2:16-cv-00773-TLN-AC. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20170803b71
Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 01, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 2017
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On March 29, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiff was granted a 30
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On March 29, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiff was granted a 30 d..
More
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On March 29, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiff was granted a 30 day extension of time to file objections. (ECF No. 61.) Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed March 29, 2017, are adopted in full; and
2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 52) is granted as to Plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim only, and otherwise is denied.
Source: Leagle
