(PS) Miller v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Opinion

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

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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 the CM/ECF system.