From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rundell-Princehouse v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jan 31, 2012
No. 1:10-cv-0988-CL (D. Or. Jan. 31, 2012)

Opinion

No. 1:10-cv-0988-CL

01-31-2012

ROCHELLE RUNDELL-PRINCEHOUSE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


ORDER

PANNER , District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed Findings 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). Although no objections have been filed, this court reviews the legal principles de novo. See Lorin Corp. v Goto & Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1983).

I have given the legal issues de novo review. I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that plaintiff has shown the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Findings and Recommendation (#23) are adopted. The Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for an immediate calculation and award of benefits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________

OWEN M. PANNER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Rundell-Princehouse v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jan 31, 2012
No. 1:10-cv-0988-CL (D. Or. Jan. 31, 2012)
Case details for

Rundell-Princehouse v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:ROCHELLE RUNDELL-PRINCEHOUSE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Jan 31, 2012

Citations

No. 1:10-cv-0988-CL (D. Or. Jan. 31, 2012)