LUTTRELL v. COLVIN, 6:14-CV-01426-PK. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20151230988
Visitors: 17
Filed: Dec. 28, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2015
Summary: ORDER ANNA J. BROWN , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#17) on November 4, 2015, in which he recommends the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this 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 Ma
Summary: ORDER ANNA J. BROWN , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#17) on November 4, 2015, in which he recommends the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this 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 Mag..
More
ORDER
ANNA J. BROWN, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#17) on November 4, 2015, in which he recommends the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this 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). See also 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).
This Court has reviewed the record de novo including Plaintiff's Objections. The Court concludes Plaintiff's Objections do not provide a basis to modify the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#17). Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision and DISMISSES this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
