Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Bureau of Land Management

Full title: OREGON NATURAL DESERT ASSOCIATION, COMMITTEE FOR THE HIGH DESERT, and…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jul 22, 2005

CV 03-1017-JE (D. Or. Jul. 22, 2005)

Opinion

CV 03-1017-JE.

July 22, 2005

PETER M. LACY, Oregon Natural Desert Association, Portland, OR, STEPHANIE M. PARENT, Portland, OR, LAURENCE J. LUCAS, Boise, ID, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

KARIN J. IMMERGUT, United States Attorney, STEPHEN J. ODELL, Assistant United States Attorney, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendants.

ORDER

ANNA BROWN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation (#103) on March 29, 2005, in which he recommended the Court grant Defendants' Motion for Judgment On The Basis Of The Administrative Record (#81), deny Plaintiffs' Dispositive Motion (#51), and dismiss the matter with prejudice. Plaintiffs 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 Fed.R.Civ.P. 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 United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9^th Cir. 1988); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9^th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). Because the objecting party did not arrange for the transcription of the record pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) nor did any party protest the lack of a transcript, the Court did not review a transcript or tape recording of the proceedings before the Magistrate Judge as part of the Court's de novo review. See Spaulding v. Univ. of Wash., 686 F.2d 1232, 1235 (9^th Cir. 1982).

This Court has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Jelderks's Findings and Recommendation (#103). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Judgment On The Basis Of The Administrative Record (#81), DENIES Plaintiffs' Dispositive Motion (#51), and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.