Alexander v. Astrue

Full title: LINDA ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jun 17, 2010

Civ. No. 09-6091-CL (D. Or. Jun. 17, 2010)

Opinion

Civ. No. 09-6091-CL.

June 17, 2010

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. I have, therefore, given this matter de novo review. I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#23) is adopted. The Commissioner's decision is affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.