IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

STEVEN C. MOOREHEAD, Case No. 6:17-cv-00917-MK ORDER Plaintiff, vs. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al, Defendants.

AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed his Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) (doc. 60) recommending that defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 38) should be GRANTED. This case is now before me. See

(b)(1) (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge’s F&R, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate PAGE 1 – ORDER judge’s report. See

(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1981), cert denied,

(1982). Plaintiff has filed timely objections. (doc. 64) Thus, I review the F&R de

novo. Having considered the record and the arguments offered by plaintiff, the Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Kasubhai’s analysis. Therefore, the Court adopts the F&R (doc. 60) in its entirety. Thus, defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 38) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this _2__7_th_ day of May, 2020.

___________/s_/_A_n_n__ A__ik_e_n____________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge