Case Name: KLAMATH-SISKIYOU WILDLANDS CENTER; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John GERRITSMA, Field Manager, Ashland Resource Areas, Medford District, acting in his official capacity and Bureau of Land Management, an administrative agency of the U.S. Department of Interior, Defendants-Appellees, Rough & Ready Lumber Company; et al., Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-27
Citations: 691 F. App'x 835
Docket Number: No. 16-35811
Parties: KLAMATH-SISKIYOU WILDLANDS CENTER; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John GERRITSMA, Field Manager, Ashland Resource Areas, Medford District, acting in his official capacity and Bureau of Land Management, an administrative agency of the U.S. Department of Interior, Defendants-Appellees, Rough & Ready Lumber Company; et al., Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, CLIFTON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 835–836

Head Matter:
KLAMATH-SISKIYOU WILDLANDS CENTER; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John GERRITSMA, Field Manager, Ashland Resource Areas, Medford District, acting in his official capacity and Bureau of Land Management, an administrative agency of the U.S. Department of Interior, Defendants-Appellees, Rough & Ready Lumber Company; et al., Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-35811
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed February 27, 2017
D.C. No. l:12-cv-01166-PA, District of Oregon, Medford
Before: CANBY, CLIFTON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
A review of the record and appellants' response to the motion for summary affir-mance indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The district court did not err in its decision awarding costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litigation, 779 F.3d 914, 924-34 (9th Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance (Docket Entry No. 9) is granted.
AFFIRMED.