Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00660/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00660-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE G. SCHMIDT, et al.,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-09-660 LKK GGH PS

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On May 27, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiffs filed objections on June

14, 2010, defendants filed a reply to plaintiffs’ objections on June 29, 2010, and they were

considered by the district judge.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

Case 2:09-cv-00660-LKK-GGH Document 46 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed May 27, 2010, are ADOPTED;

2. The motions to dismiss filed by the United States and defendants Ashton,

Amador, Fonda, Ely and Norris on October 29, 2009 (dkt #’s 24, 26) are granted in part and

denied in part;

3. Deceased defendant Judge Buchmeyer is dismissed;

4. Defendants Ely, Fonda and Norton are dismissed for lack of personal

jurisdiction;

5. The United States is dismissed from every Count except for Count I;

6. Bivens claims against defendants Amador and Ashton, with the exception of

Jordyn Manzer’s claim, are dismissed on the basis of the statute of limitations;

7. All of Jordyn Manzer’s claims, improperly brought on his behalf when he was

a minor, are dismissed with leave for him to file an amended complaint within 30 days either

through counsel or personally pro se.

DATED: July 28, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00660-LKK-GGH Document 46 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 2