Alderson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, 3:16-cv-02063-SU. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20180109c14
Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 22, 2017
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERNANDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation (#24) on October 30, 2017, in which she recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff's Request for Immediate Remand, and reverse and remand the Commissioner's decision to deny Plaintiff disability benefits. 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 no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERNANDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation (#24) on October 30, 2017, in which she recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff's Request for Immediate Remand, and reverse and remand the Commissioner's decision to deny Plaintiff disability benefits. 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 no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation ..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation (#24) on October 30, 2017, in which she recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff's Request for Immediate Remand, and reverse and remand the Commissioner's decision to deny Plaintiff disability benefits. 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 no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, 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 Sullivan's Findings & Recommendation [24]. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to remand/request for immediate remand [20] is denied. However, the Commissioner's decision is reversed and this case is remanded for further administrative proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
