Ware v. U.S. Department of Interior

Full title: MICHAEL R. WARE, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND BUREAU…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Apr 13, 2005

Civ. No. 05-3033-CO (D. Or. Apr. 13, 2005)

Opinion

Civ. No. 05-3033-CO.

April 13, 2005

ORDER

ANN AIKEN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Cooney filed his Findings and Recommendation on February 28, 2006. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (b). When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (B); McDonnell Douqlas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Plaintiff has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, given the file of this case a de novo review. I ADOPT the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 12) that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedures Act, 28 U.S.C. § 704. Therefore, this case is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.