Nguyen v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, No. 3:2011cv00360 - Document 18 (D. Or. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 16 . Signed on 5/22/2012 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (tll)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION ROA DINR NGUYEN, Plaintiff, No.3:1l-cv-00360-JE v. OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant. MOSMAN,J., On May 3, 2012, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [16] in the above-captioned case recommending that I reverse in part the Commissioner's decision and remand this action for an award of benefits. Neither party filed objections. STANDARD OF REVIEW 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 of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(J)(C). However, the court I - OPINION AND ORDER is not required to review, under a de novo or 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. Am, 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 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 part of the magistrate judge's F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderks's recommendation and I ADOPT his F&R [16] as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this -.zz. day of May, 2012. 2 - OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
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.
