Whalen v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, No. 3:2007cv01887 - Document 48 (D. Or. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING Motion for Attorney Fees 35 ; GRANTING Application for Fees Pursuant to EAJA 27 ; Adopting Findings and recommendation 46 . Ordered by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

Download PDF
Whalen v. Commissioner Social Security Administration Doc. 48 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON CV 07-1887-ST ALEXANDER WHALEN, Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY , Defendant. MOSMAN, J., On January 7, 2011, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation ( F&R ) (#46) in the above-captioned case recommending that I grant plaintiff s Application for Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (#27) and plaintiff s Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (#35). No objections were filed. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to Dockets.Justia.com review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge s F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewart s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R (#46) as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 7th day of February, 2011. /s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.