Thompson v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Filing
38
OPINION AND ORDER: ADOPTING Findings and Recommendation 36 ; GRANTING Motion for Attorney Fees 32 . Signed on 11/28/11 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
LARRY D. THOMPSON,
No. 3:09-cv-01082-ST
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
MOSMAN, J.,
On October 27, 2011, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [36] in the above-captioned case recommending that the plaintiff’s
Motion for Attorney Fees [32] be granted. There were no objections 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
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
1 – OPINION AND ORDER
(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 Stewart’s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [36]
as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this
28th
day of November, 2011.
/s/ Michael W. Mosman
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Court
2 – OPINION AND ORDER
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?