Bark v. Northrop et al

Filing 45

ORDER: The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation 33 . Accordingly, the motion to intervene 6 is granted with the following limitations: (1) Interfor will not be able to conduct discovery, (2) Interfor mus t seek to supplement the administrative record by a date set by the Court, and (3) Interfor will file its brief after the U.S. Forest Service according to a schedule set by the Court and must not duplicate any arguments made by the U.S. Forest Service. See 3-page order attached. Signed on 12/12/2013 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

BARK

No. 3:13-cv-01267-HZ
Plaintiff,
v.

LISA NORTHROP, Acting Forest
Supervisor of the Mt. Hood National
Forest, and U.S. FOREST SERVICE, a
federal agency,
Defendants.

David H. Becker
Law Office of David H. Becker, LLC
833 SE Main Street #302
Portland, OR 97214
Brenna B. Bell
Bark
P.O. Box 12065
Portland, OR 97212
Attorneys for Plaintiff

1 - ORDER

ORDER

Beverly F. Li
U.S. Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division
601 D Street, NW
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, DC 20044
Attorney for Defendants
HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation (#33) on November 18,
2013, in which she recommends that the Court grant the motion to intervene (#6) with the
following limitation: (1) Interfor will not be able to conduct discovery, (2) Interfor must seek to
supplement the administrative record within three weeks after it is filed, and (3) Interfor will file
its brief after the U.S. Forest Service according to a schedule set by the court and must not
duplicate any arguments made by the U.S. Forest Service. The matter is now before me pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation were
timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt,
840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate
Judge’s report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de
novo, I find no error.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Findings and Recommendation (#33).
Accordingly, the motion to intervene (#6) is granted with the following limitations: (1) Interfor
will not be able to conduct discovery, (2) Interfor must seek to supplement the administrative
record by a date set by the Court, and (3) Interfor will file its brief after the U.S. Forest Service
2 - ORDER

according to a schedule set by the Court and must not duplicate any arguments made by the U.S.
Forest Service.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this

day of December, 2013.

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER