Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

RUSSELL v. ASTRUE, 3:10-cv-6278-JE. (2012)

Court: District Court, D. Oregon Number: infdco20120601i44 Visitors: 11
Filed: May 25, 2012
Latest Update: May 25, 2012
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge. Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued a Findings and Recommendation (#17) on April 5, 2012, in which he recommends that this Court reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand the action for further proceedings. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review t
More

ORDER

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.

Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued a Findings and Recommendation (#17) on April 5, 2012, in which he recommends that this Court reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand the action for further proceedings.

The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Jelderks's Findings & Recommendation [17]. Accordingly, the Commissioners' decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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