STONE v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 6:14-cv-01537-AC (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20151230989
Visitors: 3
Filed: Dec. 28, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2015
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [20] on November 6, 2015, in which he recommends that this Court affirm the Commissioner's final decision denying Stone's application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Because neither party timely filed an objection to the Magistr
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [20] on November 6, 2015, in which he recommends that this Court affirm the Commissioner's final decision denying Stone's application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Because neither party timely filed an objection to the Magistra..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [20] on November 6, 2015, in which he recommends that this Court affirm the Commissioner's final decision denying Stone's application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because neither party timely filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings & Recommendation [20]. Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
