David H. Becker, Law Office of David H. Becker, LLC, Portland, OR, Brenna B. Bell, Bark, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Beverly F. Li, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, Attorney for Defendants.
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation (#33) on November 18, 2013, in which she recommends that the Court grant the motion to intervene (#6) with the following limitation: (1) Interfor will not be able to conduct discovery, (2) Interfor must seek to supplement the administrative record within three weeks after it is filed, and (3) Interfor will file its brief after the U.S. Forest Service according to a schedule set by the court and must not duplicate any arguments made by the U.S. Forest Service. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia , 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt , 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) ( de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation (#33). Accordingly, the motion to intervene (#6) is granted with the following limitations: (1) Interfor will not be able to conduct discovery, (2) Interfor must seek to supplement the administrative record by a date set by the Court, and (3) Interfor will file its brief after the U.S. Forest Service according ...