United States District Court, D. Oregon
February 19, 2014
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Defendant
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
For Bark, Plaintiff: Brenna B. Bell, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bark, Portland, OR.
For Bureau of Land Management, Defendant: Brian M. Collins, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental and Natural Resources of Division, Washington, DC.
ANNA J. BROWN, United States District Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#53) on
December 18, 2013, in which he recommends the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion (#18) for Summary Judgment, grant Defendant's Cross-Motion (#30) for Summary Judgment, and enter a judgment dismissing this matter with prejudice. Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)( en banc ).
In Plaintiff's Objections Plaintiff reiterates the arguments contained in Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Response in Opposition (to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment) and Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and stated at oral argument. This Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation.
The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (#53), DENIES Plaintiff's Motion (#18) for Summary Judgment, GRANTS Defendant's Cross-Motion (#30) for Summary Judgment, and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.