Visser v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, No. 3:2020cv00480 - Document 28 (D. Or. 2021)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Judge Clarke's F&R 23 . The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED, and this case is dismissed. Signed on 9/21/2021 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

Download PDF
Visser v. Commissioner Social Security Administration Case 3:20-cv-00480-CL Doc. 28 Document 28 Filed 09/21/21 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON CORRINE V.,1 Case No. 3:20-cv-00480-CL OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, vs. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke issued Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 23) on August 4, 2021 in which he recommends that the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision be affirmed. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Plaintiff filed timely objections to the F&R. Doc. 25. Accordingly, I must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. In the interest of privacy, this Opinion uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the non-governmental party in this case. 1 Page 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:20-cv-00480-CL Document 28 Filed 09/21/21 Page 2 of 2 P. 72(b)(3); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Plaintiffs objections raised an issue that was not briefed before Judge Clarke—whether the ALJ erred by failing to evaluate all relevant evidence, including statements from plaintiff’s partner. Obj. (doc. 25) at 2–3. I decline to address this issue for the first time on review. See Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 745–46 (9th Cir. 2002) (rejecting the Fourth Circuit’s holding that a district court must consider new arguments raised for the first time in an objection to a magistrate judge’s F&R); United States v. Howell, 231 F3d 615, 622 (9th Cir. 2000) (district courts have discretion to consider new evidence raised for the first time in an objection to a magistrate judge’s F&R). I have carefully considered the remaining objections and conclude that they do not provide a basis to modify the F&R. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the F&R. Thus, the Court ADOPTS Judge Clarke’s F&R (doc. 23). The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED, and this case is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. VW day of September 2021. Dated this __BB_ V $QQ $LNHQ __________________________ Ann Aiken United States District Judge 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.