Save Arnold Canal v. Arnold Irrigation District

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SAVE ARNOLD CANAL, an Oregon Non-Profit Corporation, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Civ. No. 6:22-cv-01462-CL

v. ORDER

ARNOLD IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants. _____________________________

MCSHANE, Judge: Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke filed a Findings and Recommendation (#38), and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Although neither party filed objections, I reviewed the legal principles de novo. United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir. 1998). I find no error and conclude the report is correct. Magistrate Judge Clarke’s Findings and Recommendation (#38) is adopted. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (#24) is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant’s Motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second and third claims for relief is GRANTED. The second and third claims for relief are 1 – ORDER dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiff Save Arnold Canal. Defendant’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Make More Definite are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 11th day of July, 2023.

_______/s/ Michael J. McShane________ Michael McShane United States District Judge

2 – ORDER