Hicks v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
6
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/2/11 ADOPTING 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; and DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP.. (Carlos, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
ROGER HICKS,
11
Plaintiff,
12
CIV-S-11-0148 JAM GGH
vs.
13
14
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
15
16
ORDER
Defendant.
__________________________________/
17
On February 22, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations
18
herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the
19
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.
20
This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to
21
which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
22
Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920
23
(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,
24
the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.
25
United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are
26
\\\\\
1
1
reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.
2
1983).
3
The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,
4
concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.
5
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
6
1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 22, 2011, are ADOPTED;
7
2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED; and
8
3. The court notes that plaintiff paid the filing fee on March 4, 2011.
9
DATED: May 2, 2011
/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?