Wolfgang Nebmaier v. Josephine County, a political entity in the State of Oregon along with all related…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WOLFGANG NEBMAIER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
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.
No. 18-35743
D.C. No. 1:18-cv-01258-MC
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
FEB 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35743
§ 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.

-- 2 of 2 --