From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coxey v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 22, 2008
No. CIV-S-07-0977 JAM GGH (E.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV-S-07-0977 JAM GGH.

October 22, 2008


ORDER


On September 18, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed September 18, 2008, are ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Remand or Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART, the Commissioner's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and judgment is entered for the plaintiff. This matter is remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further findings in accordance with the findings and recommendations.


Summaries of

Coxey v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 22, 2008
No. CIV-S-07-0977 JAM GGH (E.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2008)
Case details for

Coxey v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:PATTIE A. COXEY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 22, 2008

Citations

No. CIV-S-07-0977 JAM GGH (E.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2008)

Citing Cases

Krier v. Colvin

"In other words, after the error is removed there must remain specific reasons supporting the credibility…