(PS) Sabetta et al v. The National Railroad Passenger Corp. et al, No. 2:2008cv02181 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/28/2010 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 are ADOPTED; Plaintiffs' claims for relief under 18:245(b) and 245(e) are DISMISSED with prejudice; and Plaintiffs Wichelman and Walker are DISMISSED from this action with prejudice. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
(PS) Sabetta et al v. The National Railroad Passenger Corp. et al Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANNE SABETTA, et al. 11 Plaintiffs, 12 13 14 CIV. S-08-2181 JAM KJN PS v. THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORP., dba AMTRAK, et al., ORDER 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 18 On April 22, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 19 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 20 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On May 11, 2010, an extension of time 21 was granted to June 10, 2010 in which to file objections. Plaintiff Karl Wichelman has filed 22 objections.1 23 //// 24 25 26 1 Plaintiff Karl Wichelman filed a notice of disappointment in the magistrate judge’s ruling denying counsel which this court construes as an objection to the findings and recommendations. (Dkt. No. 18.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Mail addressed to plaintiff Bridgette Walker was returned to the court.2 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 3 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 4 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff 5 Wichelman’s expression of disappointment in the court’s denial of his request for counsel is 6 factually and legally unsupported and the court finds no grounds for overturning the findings and 7 recommendations of the magistrate judge on this point.3 8 9 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 10 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 11 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed April 22, 2010, are ADOPTED; 12 2. Plaintiffs’ claims for relief under 18 U.S.C. §§ 245(b) and 245(e) are dismissed with 13 14 15 prejudice; and 3. Plaintiffs Wichelman and Walker are dismissed from this action with prejudice.4 DATED: June 28, 2010 16 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 Pursuant to Local Rule 183, pro se plaintiffs must keep the court apprised of their current address. 23 3 24 Plaintiff Wichelman states that the denial of his request for counsel was with prejudice. However, the findings and recommendations in this action do not state that the request for counsel was denied with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 14 at 6-7.) 25 4 26 The findings and recommendations erroneously referred to Wichelman and Walker as defendants rather than plaintiffs on page eight of that ruling. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.