Warner v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, No. 3:2008cv06001 - Document 30 (D. Or. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 22 . Signed on 5/4/2009 by Judge James A. Redden. (See formal Opinion and Order,2-pages ) (ecp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON TERESA SUE WARNER, Plaintiff, Cv. 08-6001 ST OPINION AND ORDER v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration Defendant. REDDEN, Judge: In Findings and Recommendation dated March 6, 2009 (Docket no. 22), Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart found that the Commissioner's decision should be afftrmed. The matter is now before me. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the District Court must make a de novo determination of that portion ofthe Magistrate Judge's report. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9 th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 US 920 (1982). This district court is not, however, required to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which the parties do not object. Thomas v. Arn, 474 US 140, 149 (1985); United State v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir 2003). Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. I have, therefore, reviewed de novo the relevant portions of Judge Stewart's ruling. I agree with Judge Stewart's analysis and conclusions. Accordit1g1y, I adopt Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendations as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this ~y of May, 2008. 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.
