From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peterson v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
Mar 28, 2011
Civil No. 10-138-JE (D. Or. Mar. 28, 2011)

Opinion

Civil No. 10-138-JE.

March 28, 2011


ORDER


Magistrate Judge John Jelderks filed his Findings and Recommendation on March 2, 2011. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R. Civ P. 72(b). No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. See § 636(b)(1)(C); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174-75 (9th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Jelderks' Findings and Recommendation #14. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED; this action is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Peterson v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
Mar 28, 2011
Civil No. 10-138-JE (D. Or. Mar. 28, 2011)
Case details for

Peterson v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:ERIK PETERSON, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Comissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

Date published: Mar 28, 2011

Citations

Civil No. 10-138-JE (D. Or. Mar. 28, 2011)

Citing Cases

Theodore R. v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin.

Rather, courts have found that restrictions using terms such as “close contact” and “close proximity” with…