Adam C. v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, 3:17-cv-00632-AC. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20180815g24
Visitors: 12
Filed: Aug. 10, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 10, 2018
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [24] on May 7, 2018, in which he recommends that this Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's applications for Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings & R
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [24] on May 7, 2018, in which he recommends that this Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's applications for Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Re..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [24] on May 7, 2018, in which he recommends that this Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's applications for Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation. Pl.'s Obj., ECF 26. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & 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 there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation [24]. The Commissioner's decision is affirmed.
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
