CANTERBURY v. ASTRUE, 3:11-CV-00293-AC. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20120518931
Visitors: 2
Filed: May 17, 2012
Latest Update: May 17, 2012
Summary: ORDER ANNA J. BROWN, District Judge. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#21) on March 22, 2012, in which he recommends the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits and 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 o
Summary: ORDER ANNA J. BROWN, District Judge. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#21) on March 22, 2012, in which he recommends the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits and 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 ob..
More
ORDER
ANNA J. BROWN, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#21) on March 22, 2012, in which he recommends the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits and 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 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc); United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988).
In his Objections, Plaintiff reiterates the arguments contained in his 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 Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (#21). Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision and DISMISSES this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
