Smith v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

D. Oregon

Smith v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

DecidedMarch 29, 2021

Docket3:19-cv-01773

StatusUnknown

This text of Smith v. Commissioner Social Security Administration (Smith v. Commissioner Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, (D. Or. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ROBERT S.,1 Case No. 3:19-cv-01773-SB

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

On March 3, 2021, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (F&R), ECF 28. The F&R recommends that this Court affirm the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s (“Commissioner”) denial of Plaintiff’s applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. No party has filed objections.

1 In the interest of privacy, this opinion uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the non-governmental party in this case. DISCUSSION Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. No party having filed objections, this Court has reviewed the F&R and accepts Judge Beckerman’s conclusions. The F&R, ECF 28, is adopted in full. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED, and this case is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 29th day of March, 2021.

/s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ROBERT S.,1 Case No. 3:19-cv-01773-SB

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

On March 3, 2021, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (F&R), ECF 28. The F&R recommends that this Court affirm the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s (“Commissioner”) denial of Plaintiff’s applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. No party has filed objections.

1 In the interest of privacy, this opinion uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the non-governmental party in this case. DISCUSSION Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. No party having filed objections, this Court has reviewed the F&R and accepts Judge Beckerman’s conclusions. The F&R, ECF 28, is adopted in full. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED, and this case is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 29th day of March, 2021.

/s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-commissioner-social-security-administration-ord-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack