From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chipman v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION
Nov 9, 2011
Civil No. 10-6164-TC (D. Or. Nov. 9, 2011)

Opinion

Civil No. 10-6164-TC

11-09-2011

DEBRA KAY CHIPMAN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Defendant.


ORDER

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and Recommendation on September 2, 2011, in the above entitled case. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. ' See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) ; McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Plaintiff has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, given de novo review of Magistrate Judge Coffin's rulings.

I find, no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation filed September 2, 2011, in its entirety. The Commissioner's decision is affirmed. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

_________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Chipman v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION
Nov 9, 2011
Civil No. 10-6164-TC (D. Or. Nov. 9, 2011)
Case details for

Chipman v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:DEBRA KAY CHIPMAN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

Date published: Nov 9, 2011

Citations

Civil No. 10-6164-TC (D. Or. Nov. 9, 2011)