HAMILTON v. COLVIN, 3:13-CV-01584-AC. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20141126g77
Visitors: 1
Filed: Nov. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 25, 2014
Summary: ORDER ANNA J. BROWN, District Judge. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#19) on September 15, 2014, in which he recommends the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application 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 part
Summary: ORDER ANNA J. BROWN, District Judge. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#19) on September 15, 2014, in which he recommends the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application 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..
More
ORDER
ANNA J. BROWN, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#19) on September 15, 2014, in which he recommends the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application 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 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 Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (#19). Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision and DISMISSES this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
