Legal Opinion
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. Medford District of the Bureau of Land Management
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided October 3, 2005No. Civ. 04-3077-COPublished
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
AIKEN, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Cooney filed his Findings and Recommendation on July 15, 2005. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(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 Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920, 102 S.Ct. 1277, 71 L.Ed.2d 461 (1982).
Plaintiff has timely filed…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Commodore Business MacHines Inc. And Commodore Business MacHines (Canada) LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Greenpeace Action v. FranklinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Idaho Sporting Congress v. ThomasCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.