Save Arnold Canal v. Arnold Irrigation District
This text of Save Arnold Canal v. Arnold Irrigation District (Save Arnold Canal v. Arnold Irrigation District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Save Arnold Canal v. Arnold Irrigation District, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/save-arnold-canal-v-arnold-irrigation-district-ord-2023.