From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richards v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT 0F OREGON EUGENE
Jan 17, 2012
CIVIL No. 10-3139-TC (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL No. 10-3139-TC

01-17-2012

ANTHONY J. RICHARDS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner Defendant.


ORDER

Magistrate Judge Thomas M Coffin has filed his Findings and 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. Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1982). See also Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

Accordingly, I ADOPT Judge Coffins Findings and Recommendation. The ALJ's decision that Richards was not disabled as of August 31, 2007, is affirmed. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

______________________

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Richards v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT 0F OREGON EUGENE
Jan 17, 2012
CIVIL No. 10-3139-TC (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2012)
Case details for

Richards v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY J. RICHARDS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT 0F OREGON EUGENE

Date published: Jan 17, 2012

Citations

CIVIL No. 10-3139-TC (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2012)