Bradford v. Commissioner Social Security Administration ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION JOHNNY RAY B.4, Case No, 3:18-cv-00618-MK ORDER Plaintiff oo om □ □□ Vv. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Defendant. AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 18) recommending that the final decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff's application benefits be affirmed. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B} and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge’s F&R, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge’s report. See 28 US.C, § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). ' Tn the interest of privacy, this order uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the non-governmental party or parties in this case. PAGE 1 -ORDER Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the F&R (doc. 20), and the Commissioner has filed a timely response to those objections (doc. 21). Thus, I review the F&R de novo. Having considered the record and the arguments offered by the parties, I find no error in Magistrate Judge Kasubhai’s opinion. Thus, I adopt the F&R (doc. 18) in its entirety. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. This action is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this fl boy peetiey □□□ Aiken United States District Judges PAGE 2 -ORDER