Center for Biological Diversity et al v. Kelly et al

Filing 43

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is hereby Ordered that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 42 ) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in its entirety. It is further Ordered that Defendants' Motions to Intervene (Dkts. 9 , 14 , 20 ) are GRANTED. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY, DEFENDERS OF
WILDLIFE, CONSERVATION
NORTHWEST, IDAHO
CONSERVATION LEAGUE, SELKIRK
CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, and
THE LANDS COUNCIL,

Case No. 1:13-CV-00427-EJL-CWD
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiffs,
v.
BRIAN KELLY, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Idaho State Supervisor, and U.S.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
Defendants.

On June 19, 2014, Chief United States Magistrate Candy W. Dale issued a Report
and Recommendation in this matter. (Dkt. 42.) The Report and Recommendation sets
forth the underlying factual and procedural history of the case and recommends that the
Defendants Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Boundary County, and Governor C.L. “Butch”

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 1

Otter’s Motions to Intervene be granted. (Dkt. 42.)1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the
parties had fourteen days in which to file written objections to the Report and
Recommendation. No objections were filed by the parties and the time for doing so has
passed.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
Where the parties object to a report and recommendation, this Court “shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report which objection is made.” Id. Where,
however, no objections are filed the district court need not conduct a de novo review. In
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003), the court interpreted
the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C):
The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge
must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo
if objection is made, but not otherwise. As the Peretz Court instructed, “to
the extent de novo review is required to satisfy Article III concerns, it need
not be exercised unless requested by the parties.” Peretz, 501 U.S. at 939
(internal citation omitted). Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a
district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the
parties themselves accept as correct. See Ciapponi, 77 F.3d at 1251
(“Absent an objection or request for review by the defendant, the district
court was not required to engage in any more formal review of the plea
proceeding.”); see also Peretz, 501 U.S. at 937-39 (clarifying that de novo
review not required for Article III purposes unless requested by the parties)
....
1

There remains pending a Motion to Intervene by the Idaho State Snowmobile Association, Inc.
and Bonner County that only recently became ripe. (Dkt. 33, 39, 41.) An order on this pending Motion
will be issued in due course.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 2

See also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, to
the extent that no objections are made, arguments to the contrary are waived. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (objections are waived if they are not filed within
fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation). “When no timely objection
is filed, the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.” Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th
Cir.1974)).
In this case, no objections were filed so the Court is not required to conduct a de
novo determination of the Report and Recommendation. The Court has, however,
reviewed the Report and Recommendation as well as the record in this matter and finds
no clear error on the face of the record. The Magistrate Judge properly set forth the law
applicable to the Motions to Intervene and has appropriately applied the law to the facts
and circumstances of this case. For the same reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge,
this Court too finds that the Motions to Intervene should be granted.
In sum, the Court finds the Report and Recommendation is well-founded in the
law based on the facts of this particular case and this Court is in agreement with the same.
Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation and will grant the
Defendants’ Motions to Intervene as stated therein.
Additionally, there is a pending Motion for Summary Judgment in this case filed
by the Plaintiffs. (Dkt. 38.) Responses to that Motion are due on August 8, 2014 with
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 3

reply briefs being due on September 15, 2014. The Court will allow these intervening
parties to file a joint response to the Motion for Summary Judgment of no more than 24
pages on or before August 8, 2014. In the event these intervening parties are unable to
coordinate a joint response, they may file individual responses of no more than 8 pages
each on or before August, 8, 2014. If necessary, Plaintiffs may seek leave of the Court to
file a limited number of additional pages in its reply briefing to address the briefing filed
by the intervening parties.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. 42) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in
its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Intervene (Dkts. 9,
14, 20) are GRANTED as stated herein.
DATED: July 11, 2014

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 4