Flynn v. Berryhill, 6:16-CV-02097-PK. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20180327j36
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [22] on February 12, 2018, in which he recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision regarding Disability Insurance Benefits and reverse and remand the Commissioner's final decision regarding Supplemental Security Income for an immediate award of 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
Summary: ORDER MARCO A. HERN NDEZ , District Judge . Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [22] on February 12, 2018, in which he recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision regarding Disability Insurance Benefits and reverse and remand the Commissioner's final decision regarding Supplemental Security Income for an immediate award of 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 ..
More
ORDER
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [22] on February 12, 2018, in which he recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision regarding Disability Insurance Benefits and reverse and remand the Commissioner's final decision regarding Supplemental Security Income for an immediate award of 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 Papak's Findings and Recommendation [22]. Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision regarding Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II is AFFIRMED, and the Commissioner's decision regarding Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for an immediate award of benefits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
