Interwest Exploration, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Land Management and Kathleen Sgamma, in her capacity as Administrator, United States Bureau of Land Management

D. Montana

Interwest Exploration, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Land Management and Kathleen Sgamma, in her capacity as Administrator, United States Bureau of Land Management

District Court, D. Montana·Decided August 13, 2026·No. 1:23-cv-00055·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

INTERWEST EXPLORATION, INC., CV 23-55-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, VS. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECOMMENDATION OF LAND MANAGEMENT and UNITED STATES KATHLEEN SGAMMA, in her MAGISTRATE JUDGE capacity as Administrator, United States Bureau of Land Management, Defendants. Plaintiff Interwest Exploration, Inc. brings this action seeking judicial review of an Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”) decision rejecting four unpatented mining claims for failure to timely file notices of location as required by section 314 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1744. (Doc. 19). Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) and Defendants United States Bureau of Land Management and Kathleen Sgamma’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34). United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen L. Desoto issued her Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 37) on July 28, 2026, recommending that this Court (1) deny Plaintiff's Motion and (2) grant Defendants’ Cross-Motion.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), parties are required to file any objections within 14 days of the filing of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation. Here, no objections were filed. When no party objects, the district court reviews the findings and recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if “the reviewing court .. . is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). Having conducted this review, the Court agrees with Judge DeSoto’s analysis and conclusions and finds no clear error. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 37) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) is DENIED. (2) Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34) is GRANTED. (3) The decision of the IBLA is AFFIRMED. (4) This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

pA DATED this £2 day of August, 2026.

SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

INTERWEST EXPLORATION, INC., CV 23-55-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, VS. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECOMMENDATION OF LAND MANAGEMENT and UNITED STATES KATHLEEN SGAMMA, in her MAGISTRATE JUDGE capacity as Administrator, United States Bureau of Land Management, Defendants. Plaintiff Interwest Exploration, Inc. brings this action seeking judicial review of an Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”) decision rejecting four unpatented mining claims for failure to timely file notices of location as required by section 314 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1744. (Doc. 19). Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) and Defendants United States Bureau of Land Management and Kathleen Sgamma’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34). United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen L. Desoto issued her Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 37) on July 28, 2026, recommending that this Court (1) deny Plaintiff's Motion and (2) grant Defendants’ Cross-Motion.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), parties are required to file any objections within 14 days of the filing of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation. Here, no objections were filed. When no party objects, the district court reviews the findings and recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if “the reviewing court .. . is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). Having conducted this review, the Court agrees with Judge DeSoto’s analysis and conclusions and finds no clear error. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 37) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) is DENIED. (2) Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34) is GRANTED. (3) The decision of the IBLA is AFFIRMED. (4) This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

pA DATED this £2 day of August, 2026.

SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge

Interwest Exploration, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Land Management and Kathleen Sgamma, in her capacity as Administrator, United States Bureau of Land Management, (D. Mont. 2026).

Pincite

Interwest Exploration, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Land Management and Kathleen Sgamma, in her capacity as Administrator, United States Bureau of Land Management (Interwest Exploration, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Land Management and Kathleen Sgamma, in her capacity as Administrator, United States Bureau of Land Management) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related