Pacific Rivers, et al. v United States Bureau of Land Management, et al.

Filing 104

Opinion and Order: Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo's Findings & Recommendation, 92 is adopted in full. Consistent with the F&R, Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, 75 , 76 and 80 are granted. Plaintiffs and Defendant-Intervenors Motions for Summary Judgment 62 and 66 are denied. Signed on 3/15/2019 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)

Case 6:16-cv-01598-JR

Document 104

Filed 03/15/19

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PACIFIC RIVERS; CASCADIA
WILDLANDS; COAST RANGE
ASSOCIATION; KLAMATH-SISKIYOU
WILDLANDS CENTER; OREGON WILD;
THE WILDBRNBSS SOCIETY; PACIFIC
COAST FEDERATION OF FISHBRMEN'S
ASSOCIATIONS; INSTITUTE FOR
FISHERIES RESOURCES; and UMPQUA
WATERSHEDS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGBMENT;
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE;
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; U.S.
DEPARTMBNT OF INTERIOR; and U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Defendants,
v.
ZUBER & SONS LOGGING, LLC; TURNER
LOGGING, INC.; and ROSEBURG AREA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
Defendant-Intervenors.
___________________________________

Page 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case No. 6:16-cv-01598-JR
OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:16-cv-01598-JR

Document 104

Filed 03/15/19

Page 2 of 2

MCSHANE, 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’ CrossMotions 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.
DATED this 15th day of March, 2019.
/s/ Michael McShane________
Michael J. McShane
United States District Judge

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”).

Page 2 – OPINION AND ORDER