Full text
Wolfgang Nebmaier v. Josephine County
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WOLFGANG NEBMAIER, No. 18-35743
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:18-cv-01258-MC
v. MEMORANDUM* JOSEPHINE COUNTY, a political entity in the State of Oregon along with all related regulatory entities, past or present, engaged in the violation of 7:301, the Morrill Act of July 2nd, 1862. (in the following “Josephine County”),
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2018** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Wolfgang Nebmaier appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging claims under the Morrill Act of 1862, 7 U.S.C.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 301. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Nebmaier’s action because the Morrill Act of 1862 does not provide a private right of action. See UFCW Local 1500 Pension Fund v. Mayer, 895 F.3d 695, 698-99 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth circumstances under which the court may interpret a private right of action, and explaining that a private right of action requires evidence of a congressional intent to create a private right and a private remedy).
Nebmaier’s request to strike defendant’s answering brief, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.
Defendant’s pending motion (Docket Entry No. 15) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
Footnotes
[2] 18-35743