(PS) Miller v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 23, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-02113
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALAN MILLER, No. 2:22-cv-02113 KJM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 On November 2, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. See F&Rs, ECF No. 38. 23 Plaintiff filed objections, see Obj., ECF No. 39, and defendant responded, see Resp., ECF No. 40. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court adopts the 26 findings and recommendations in part. First, the court notes the Tahoe Regional Planning 27 Compact (Compact), Pub. L. 96-551, 94 Stat. 3233 (Dec. 19, 1980), rather than the 28 Administrative Procedures Act (APA), provides the applicable standard of review. See Sierra 1 || Club v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency, 840 F.3d 1106, 1114 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding the Compact and 2 || not the APA provides the applicable standard of review, because the TRPA is not a federal 3 || agency). However, because the standards imposed by the APA and the Compact align so closely 4 || here, the court finds the magistrate judge’s reliance on the APA when denying plaintiff's motion 5 || to supplement the record does not change the analysis nor the outcome. See, e.g., Harrosh v. 6 || Tahoe Reg’! Plan. Agency, No. 21-01969, 2023 WL 3456922, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2023) 7 || (considering APA cases when deciding whether to grant the motion to supplement the 8 | administrative record). Second, to the extent plaintiff argues a typographical error in the findings 9 || and recommendations! leads to an erroneous conclusion, see Obj. at 167, the court finds this 10 || argument unavailing. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 2, 2023, are adopted as described 12 above; 13 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 28) is DENIED; 14 3. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED; and 15 4. This case is CLOSED. 16 | DATED: April 22, 2024. 17

19 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 76 The findings and recommendations refer to AR 0738-0473 instead of AR 0738-0743. See F&Rs 97 || at 13:14. ? When citing page numbers on filings, the court uses the pagination automatically generated by 28 | the CM/ECF system.