MOORE v. ASTRUE, 3:08-CV-1203-HU. (2011)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20110803929
Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 02, 2011
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2011
Summary: ORDER GARR M. KING, Judge. The Honorable Dennis J. Hubel, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on June 30, 2011. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's Findings and Recommendation concerning a dispositive motion or prisoner petition, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
Summary: ORDER GARR M. KING, Judge. The Honorable Dennis J. Hubel, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on June 30, 2011. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's Findings and Recommendation concerning a dispositive motion or prisoner petition, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); M..
More
ORDER
GARR M. KING, Judge.
The Honorable Dennis J. Hubel, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on June 30, 2011. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's Findings and Recommendation concerning a dispositive motion or prisoner petition, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); McDonnell Douglas Com. v. Commodore Business Machines. Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). This court has, therefore, given de novo review of the rulings of Magistrate Judge Hubel.
This court ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation ofMagistrate Judge Hubel dated June 30, 2011 (#35) in its entirety.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees 31 is granted in part. I award a fee of$8,597.88, with the sum of$3,026.01 refunded to the plaintiffrepresenting EAJA fees already awarded.
Source: Leagle
