Summary
In Pringle, an Oregon law was amended to remove authority from the Department of State Lands to issue permits for suction dredge mining within a scenic waterway.
Summary of this case from Bohmker v. StateOpinion
Case No. 2:13-cv-00309-SU
02-25-2014
EUGENE DAYTON PRINGLE, JR., pro se, Mining Claims S & D 1 #154263; S & D 2 #154262; S & D 3 #154261 Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OREGON, John Kitzhaber; ATTORNEY GENERAL, Ellen Rosenblum; DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS, Erik Metz, OREGON PARKS & RECREATION, Jan Houck; OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE; UNITED STATES, Attorney General, Eric Holder; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, Ken Salazar, Brian Bair, Fisheries Biologist, TEAMS Enterprise; Robert Nykamp, Archaeologist, TEAMS Enterprise; Tim Holden, Wildlife Biologist, Above & Beyond Ecosystems Enterprise; THE FRESH WATER TRUST, Peter Paquet, RBP, LLC; John and Jane Doe 1 to 999 to be named, Defendants.
Eugene Dayton Pringle, Jr Pro se Plaintiff Stephanie M. Parent Jacqueline Sadker Kamins OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SPECIAL LITIGATION UNIT Attorneys for Defendants
ORDER
Eugene Dayton Pringle, Jr
Pro se Plaintiff Stephanie M. Parent
Jacqueline Sadker Kamins
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
SPECIAL LITIGATION UNIT
Attorneys for Defendants HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation [38] on December 23, 2013, recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss [18] be granted and that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, as here, 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); 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).
I have carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and conclude that these objections do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation [38]. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss [18] is GRANTED and this action is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge