Hampton v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, No. 3:2008cv00538 - Document 19 (D. Or. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubel's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R 17 as my own opinion. Signed on 7/27/09 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ROBERT HAMPTON, No. CV 08-538-HU Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MOSMAN, J., On July 2, 2009, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (#17) in the above-captioned case recommending that I AFFIRM the Commissioner's decision. No objection to the F&R was 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 of 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, 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 PAGE 1 - OPINION AND ORDER 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 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 Hubel's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R (#17) as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 27 day of July, 2009. /s/ Michael W Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court PAGE 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.