Rivers v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 6:16-cv-01598-JR. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20190318c72
Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2019
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL J. McSHANE , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo filed a Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") on October 12, 2018, ECF No. 92, and the matter is now before this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiffs and Defendant-Intervenors timely filed objections to the F&R. ECF Nos. 96-97. Accordingly, I have reviewed the file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL J. McSHANE , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo filed a Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") on October 12, 2018, ECF No. 92, and the matter is now before this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiffs and Defendant-Intervenors timely filed objections to the F&R. ECF Nos. 96-97. Accordingly, I have reviewed the file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc...
More
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. McSHANE, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo filed a Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") on October 12, 2018, ECF No. 92, and the matter is now before this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiffs and Defendant-Intervenors timely filed objections to the F&R. ECF Nos. 96-97. Accordingly, I have reviewed the file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). I find no error and conclude that the F&R is correct. Judge Russo's F&R is adopted in full. Consistent with the F&R, Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 75, 76, 80, are GRANTED. Plaintiffs and Defendant-Intervenors' Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 62, 66, are DENIED.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. In the interest of clarity, although the F&R refers to Defendant-Intervenors' claim as a counterclaim, it was filed as a crossclaim, First Am. Answer of Def.-Intervenors to First Am. Compl. & Crossclaim 15, ECF No. 54, and is properly characterized as a crossclaim, compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a)(1), (b) (describing a counterclaim as one against an "opposing party") with Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(g) (describing a crossclaim as one against a "coparty").
Source: Leagle
