Evans v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION DEB EVANS, RON SCHAAF, et al. Case No. 1:19-cv-00766-CL ORDER AND OPINION Plaintiffs, vs. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Defendant.

AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) (doc. 31) recommending that plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (doc.

18) should be GRANTED, and defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 13) should be DENIED. This case is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(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 judge’s report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). Both parties filed timely objections (docs. 33, 34) and responses (docs. 35, 36). Thus, I review the F&R de novo.

Having considered the record and the arguments offered by the parties, the Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Clarke’s analysis. Therefore, the Court adopts the F&R (doc. 31) in its entirety. Thus, plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 18) is GRANTED, and defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 13) is DENIED. Accordingly, defendant shall comply with plaintiffs’ Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq, request and release unredacted landowner lists.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 2_7__th__ day of May, 2020.

___________/_s/_A_n__n_ A__i_k_e_n___________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge