Opinion ID: 492096
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 Public Land Order 3502 (PLO 3502), effective December 8, 1964, withdrew from appropriation under the United States mining laws all lands lying within a certain area of Forest Road 580 in the Willamette National Forest. The withdrawal is still in effect. 3 The Mandalay claim was located in 1979. Some time thereafter, Shiny Rock applied to the BLM for a mineral patent for that claim. The application was rejected in part and a portion of the Mandalay claim was declared null and void ab initio by the BLM because part of the claim is situated in the area withdrawn by PLO 3502. Excerpt of Record (ER) p. 26. 4 Shiny Rock appealed to the IBLA, arguing that there were errors, deficiencies, or violations of applicable statutes and regulations in the formulation, drafting, and publication of PLO 3502. ER p. 29. The IBLA held, however, that it was not necessary to address the legality of PLO 3502 in order to resolve the issue before it, that being the validity of the Mandalay claim. The IBLA held: 5 The Department has repeatedly held that the availability of land for appropriation or lease must at least initially be determined by recourse to the public records of the BLM. Under this so-called notation rule, if the BLM records have been noted to reflect the devotion of land to a particular use that is exclusive of another conflicting use, no incompatible rights in the land can attach by reason of any subsequent application until the record has been changed to reflect the availability of the land for the desired use. The rule generally applies even where the notation was posted to the records in error or where the segregative use so noted is void, voidable, or has terminated or expired. 6 ER p. 30. 7 Shiny Rock petitioned for reconsideration, arguing that the application of the notation rule violated due process because it deprived Shiny Rock of its property right to locate mining claims on public lands since it validates the unconstitutional actions of the BLM, that is, the alleged failure of BLM to follow its regulations in withdrawing the land at issue. ER p. 33. Because the BLM records reflected that the land in question was withdrawn from mineral entry before Shiny Rock located its claim, the IBLA reaffirmed its decision that the claim was null and void. 8 Shiny Rock filed suit in federal district court seeking review of the agency decisions and requesting a declaratory judgment that PLO 3502 is unconstitutional insofar as it deprives Shiny Rock of its property without due process and that if PLO 3502 is enforced, it will result in a taking of Shiny Rock's property without just compensation. Shiny Rock also sought a judgment permanently enjoining the enforcement of PLO 3502. ER pp. 1-2. 9 Following a hearing on the government's motion for summary judgment, the magistrate filed his findings and recommendation, recommending that the government's motion be granted. The magistrate found that the notation rule as applied did not violate Shiny Rock's due process rights because it did not challenge the validity of the withdrawal at the proper time ... [and] [t]he notation rule as applied ... did not prevent plaintiff from exercising a valid property right. ER pp. 21-22. The magistrate held that because the withdrawal was noted on the BLM land records at the time the Mandalay claim was located and as long as the withdrawal was prima facie valid and remained uncancelled, the land in question was not subject to further entry. ER p. 20. 10 Because no objections to the magistrate's report were timely filed, the district court was relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (8th Cir.1983). See also Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.1983). The district court entered judgment granting the government's motion. 1 This appeal followed.