McCutcheon v. Astrue

Full title: CONSTANCE McCUTCHEON, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: May 22, 2009

Civ. No. 07-1745-CL (D. Or. May. 22, 2009)

Opinion

Civ. No. 07-1745-CL.

May 22, 2009

ORDER

OWEN PANNER, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F. 2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).

Here, plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation. On de novo review, I find no error. I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#25) is adopted. The Commissioner's decision is affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.