Emerson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, No. 6:2015cv01789 - Document 28 (D. Or. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. Signed on 3/29/2017 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pvh)
Emerson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration Doc. 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION DEBRA KAY EMERSON, No. 6:15-cv-01789-YY Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINSTRATION, Defendant. MOSMAN, J., On March 2, 2017, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) , recommending that the Commissioner’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3) should be AFFIRMED. No objections to the F&R were 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 regarding 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, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are 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 part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge You’s recommendation and ADOPT the F&R  as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 29th day of March, 2017. /s/ Michael W. Mosman_________ MICHAEL W. MOSMAN Chief United States District 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
Terms of Service