CONTRERAS v. COLVIN, 6:14-CV-01167-SB. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20160111920
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jan. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2016
Summary: ORDER ANNA J. BROWN , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation (#22) on October 20, 2015, in which she recommends the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application for supplemental security income. 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
Summary: ORDER ANNA J. BROWN , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation (#22) on October 20, 2015, in which she recommends the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application for supplemental security income. 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 ..
More
ORDER
ANNA J. BROWN, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation (#22) on October 20, 2015, in which she recommends the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application for supplemental security income. 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).
In her Objections Plaintiff reiterates the arguments contained in her Opening Brief and Reply. This Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation (#22). Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision and DISMISSES this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
