Wells v. Commissioner Social Security Administration ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON LORI SUE W..,! an individual, No. 6:18-cv-01268-AC Plaintiff, v. OPINION & ORDER ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MOSMAN, J., On September 16, 2019, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [15], recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Neither party objected. 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 ' In the interest of privacy, this opinion uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the nongovernmental party in this case. 1 — OPINION AND ORDER 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 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the FRR 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). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [15] as my own opinion. The Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this (Laay of November, 2019. Chief United Statésistrict Judge 2 — OPINION AND ORDER