From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moorehead v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION
May 27, 2020
Case No. 6:17-cv-00917-MK (D. Or. May. 27, 2020)

Opinion

Case No. 6:17-cv-00917-MK

05-27-2020

STEVEN C. MOOREHEAD, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Defendants.


ORDER

:

Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed his Findings and Recommendations ("F&R") (doc. 60) recommending that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 38) should be GRANTED. This case is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's F&R, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). Plaintiff has filed timely objections. (doc. 64) Thus, I review the F&R de novo.

Having considered the record and the arguments offered by plaintiff, the Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Kasubhai's analysis. Therefore, the Court adopts the F&R (doc. 60) in its entirety. Thus, defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 38) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 27th day of May, 2020.

/s/Ann Aiken

Ann Aiken

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Moorehead v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION
May 27, 2020
Case No. 6:17-cv-00917-MK (D. Or. May. 27, 2020)
Case details for

Moorehead v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN C. MOOREHEAD, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

Date published: May 27, 2020

Citations

Case No. 6:17-cv-00917-MK (D. Or. May. 27, 2020)