Spreadbury v. US Department of Health & Human Services et al, No. 9:2010cv00081 - Document 5 (D. Mont. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 4 Findings and Recommendations. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 9/7/2010. (APP, ) Copy of order mailed to Spreadbury this date.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Spreadbury v. US Department of Health & Human Services et al Doc. 5 FILED .SEPO 7 2010 PATRICK E. DUFFY, CLERK By DEPUTY CLERK. MISSOUlA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION MICHAEL SPREADBURY, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, vs. u.s. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEAL TH, FRANCIS COLLINS, and MARSHAL BLOOM, Defendants. CV 1O-8J-M-DWM-JCL ORDER ) -----------------------) Plaintiff Michael Spreadbury filed a Complaint on July 30, 20 J0 alleging Defendants violated provisions of the National Environmental Policy act of 1969 ("NEPA"), 42 U.s.c, § 4321 et seq., in relation to certain demolition and construction projects at the Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana. United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered Findings and Recommendation (dkt. 4) in this case on August 12,2010. Plaintiff did not timely -1 Dockets.Justia.com object and so has waived the right to de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court reviews the Findings and Recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Com. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists ifthe Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). Judge Lynch found that Plaintiffs allegations fail to establish that he has standing to prosecute the claims he asserts under NEP A and the AP A. I can find no clear error with Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation (dkt #4) are adopted in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint (dkt #2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dated this J V-- of September, 20 10. day loy, District Judge istrict Court -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
