James M. v. Commissioner of Social Security, 3:18-cv-00879-SU. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20191119d78
Visitors: 1
Filed: Nov. 14, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 14, 2019
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation [17] on June 19, 2019 in which she recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district co
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation [17] on June 19, 2019 in which she recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district cou..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation [17] on June 19, 2019 in which she recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and concludes that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Sullivan's Findings and Recommendation [17]. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed, and this case is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. In the interest of privacy, this order uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the non-governmental party or parties in this case.
Source: Leagle
