Graybeal v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, No. 3:2010cv06387 - Document 20 (D. Or. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 18 .The Court, therefore, REVERSES the Commissioner's final decision, and REMANDS this matter for further proceedings as recommended by Judge Papak. Signed on 11/30/2011 by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh. (sss)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C, URT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON I Portland Division THERESA A. GRAYBEAL Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant. RICHARD F. MCGINTY McGinty & Belcher, PC P.O. Box 12806 Salem, OR 97309 (503) 371-9636 Attorneys for Plaintiff S. AMANDA MARSHALL United States Attorney ADRIAN L. BROWN Assistant United States Attorney 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204-2902 (503) 727-1003 1 - OPINION AND ORDER 3:1 -CV-6387-PK OPIN ON AND ORDER BENJAMIN J. GROEBNER Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel 701 Fifth Ave, Ste 600 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 727-1003 Attorneys for Defendant MARSH, Judge. On November 2, 2011, Magistrate Judge Paul apak issued a Findings and Recommendation (#18) recommending that the Commissioner's final decision that plaintiff is disabled should be reversed and remanded to the Commissio for further proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B); F.R.C.P. 12(b). No objections to Judge Papak's Findings and:Recommendation have been timely filed. This Court, therefore, ·s relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. Uni ed States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane). Accordingly, the court has reviewed the legal pr·nciples de novo and finds no error. The Court, therefore, ADOPT and Recommendation (#18), REVERSES the Commissio the Findings final decision, and REMANDS this matter for further pr ceedings as recommended by Judge Papak. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ~day of November, 2011. Malcolm F. Marsh United States Dis rict Court Judge 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.