Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Marie T. v. Berryhill, 6:18-cv-00191-JR. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Oregon Number: infdco20190118b62 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2019
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL W. MOSMAN , District Judge . On November 30, 2018, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [16], recommending that the Commissioner's decision be REVERSED and this case REMANDED for further proceedings. Neither party filed objections to the F&R. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate
More

OPINION AND ORDER

On November 30, 2018, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [16], recommending that the Commissioner's decision be REVERSED and this case REMANDED for further proceedings. Neither party filed objections to the F&R.

DISCUSSION

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

CONCLUSION

Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [16] as my own opinion. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. In the interest of privacy, this opinion uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the nongovernmental party in this case.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer