Kunkle v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 26

OPINION AND ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 24 . Signed on 2/9/2017 by Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman. (jtj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

DIANA C. KUNKLE,
No. 6:14-cv-01605-JE
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant.

MOSMAN, J.,
On December 13, 2016, Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued his Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [24], recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be
REVERSED and this case be REMANDED for an immediate award of benefits. 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
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

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
(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 Jelderks’s recommendation and ADOPT the F&R [24]
as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

9th

day of February, 2017.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman_________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER